Empirical social research and its methods. Stages of development of empirical sociology

Belarusian State University

Informatics and Radioelectronics

Test

In the discipline "Sociology"

Completed by: student of BSUIR FNIDO

6. MAIN DIRECTIONS AND PROBLEMS OF MODERN WESTERN SOCIOLOGY

1) Pluralism of modern Western sociology. 3

2) Schools and directions of modern Western sociology:

a) empirical sociology; 3

b) structural-functional analysis; 5

c) theory of social conflict; 7

d) neo-Freudian concepts; 8

e) the concept of social exchange; 10

f) the theory of symbolic interactionism. 12

Literature 13

Pluralism of modern Western sociology

Over the course of the 20th century, the sociology of the West has undergone very significant changes and now represents an extremely complex system of ideas, hypotheses, concepts, theories, research methods and ways of describing various social realities. At the same time, almost all leaders and representatives of modern Western sociology quite actively used and are using the ideas and concepts of sociologists of the classical period, although in a number of cases they acted as a complex of theoretical, methodological and applied approaches that were supposed to be overcome. The intellectual content of the classical stage of Western sociology was used primarily in two ways: 1) as a certain bank of ideas with independent value, and 2) as ideas that were included as an active element in various varieties of modern Western sociology. A correct understanding of the pluralistic nature of the evolution of modern Western sociology requires an awareness of the fact that this evolution is primarily characterized not by linear, but by parallel and multidimensional development.

One of the most important consequences of this understanding of this process is the recognition of its heterogeneous, contradictory and uneven nature. An important point in the evolution of the main schools and varieties of modern Western sociology was the fact that this process was carried out simultaneously at three levels: theoretical, applied and empirical. Moreover, at each of these levels, sociologists of semi-eternity from a psychological and economic catastrophe assume a radical change in human character, expressed in the transition from the dominant attitude towards possession to the dominance of the attitude towards being, as well as the transition from indifferent and pathological consumption to healthy consumption, maximum decentralization of industry and policies, the implementation of industrial and political participatory democracy and the replacement

bureaucratic way of managing humanistic. Neo-Freudian sociology of E. Fromm is one of the most significant elements of modern Western intellectual culture. It gave a significant impetus to the development of not only psychosociological doctrines, but also all of modern Western sociology, of which it is, of course, one of the pinnacles.

A. Empirical sociology

Currently, almost all countries of the world are conducting

sociological research, which is most often of an applied nature, i.e. carried out according to a social order, and are intended to solve social problems that arise in the life of people. Fundamental sociological research is usually carried out by scientists at universities, and in a number of countries also at scientific institutes. This specialization of work among sociologists arose in the 1930s. of our century in the USA in connection with the emergence and wide spread of social order for

conducting certain sociological studies. The Chicago School of Empirical Sociology was a specific department of the university that existed in the first half of the 20th century with fairly early established traditions of research activity and enormous influence on the activities of sociologists throughout the country, and then throughout the world. Empirical sociology appears together with theoretical sociology, but acquires independent significance only at the beginning of our century as a specific area of sociological research with special traditions and logic of development. Although its role in the development of sociology as a science was highly appreciated from the first steps, the organization and conduct of empirical sociological research was determined primarily by the needs of society.

Empirical sociology is a complex of sociological studies

focused on the collection and analysis of specific facts of social life using special methods (surveys, questionnaires, interviews and static methods, etc.).

The emergence of empirical sociology was associated with attempts to create

sociology on the principles of positivism: the search for an objective empirical substantiation of social phenomena, the participation of social science in the process of improving social relations. In the early stages of its development, empirical research existed parallel to theoretical sociology as a private interest of enthusiasts of various professions and individual sociologists.

Empirical sociology is becoming an independent area of sociological research in the USA. The process of “pragmatization” of sociology was influenced by the transformation of pragmatism into the national philosophy of the United States. Pragmatism in the broadest sense of the word was the ideological background against which the empirical trend in sociology emerged. Having adopted some of the ideas of G. Spencer, American sociologists, under the influence of the founders of pragmatism, who intensively developed psychological science, tried to draw an analogy

not between biological and social phenomena and processes.

In the 40s - 50s. empirical sociology in the USA was able to achieve new

level of development, largely due to the influence on it of the method of structural-functional analysis, developed during these years by T. Parsov and his followers. But structural functionalism itself was born from a completely empirically oriented sociology, which took into account the important role and significance of theory in empirical research. With the advent of the structural-functional approach to the analysis of social phenomena and processes

empirical research is increasingly moving from social

psychological level to the level of analysis of social institutions and

large-scale systems. But at the same time, attention to the point of view of the subject of action is maintained, although it loses its independent meaning. In methodological terms, the “principle of understanding” is replaced by the “principle of explanation.” But the more thoroughly the conceptual apparatus was developed in T. Parsons’ “theory of social action,” the less suitable it was for conducting empirical research. A special modification of the key concepts of structural functionalism was needed, which began in the late 40s. R. Merton and which continues to this day, taking into account the achievements in the field of empirical sociological research that sociologists of various schools and directions have achieved. The characteristic features of empirical sociology are: 1) identification of scientific sociology with empirical sociology; 2) the gap between theoretical and empirical research due to different levels of generalization and features of the conceptual apparatus of theories; 3) passion for mathematical methods of data analysis, leading in some cases to a narrowing of the research horizon and the rejection of theoretical generalizations. Within empirical sociology there are two branches - academic and applied. The academic task is seen in the creation of a system of scientific knowledge about individual areas and phenomena of social life (sociologists of the city, village, family, youth, art, etc.), which are used as a methodological basis for specific empirical research. Applied empirical research, in contrast to academic research, is aimed at solving clearly defined practical problems and is directly related to the performance of social engineering functions. I must say, in the 70-80s. There has been a sharp increase in the volume of applied research.

For empirical sociology as a whole remains important and unresolved

the problem of connecting academic with applied empirical sociology to overcome fragmentation in order to obtain comprehensive, unified information, which can ultimately give a picture of social life as a whole.

Technological determinism

By the beginning of the 20th century, humanity created a new technical civilization. Technical and technological achievements caused certain social changes; sociologists began to see them as the main reason for all social changes.

The 50-60s of the 20th century were characterized by the dominance of technocratic theories. They were formed against the background of faith in the inexhaustible possibilities of science and technology.

In the 60-70s, the inhumane consequences of scientific and technological progress sharply manifested themselves and the ideas of technological concepts were sharply criticized.

By the 70s and 80s, technological progress had spread to all areas, creating the basis for technological optimism. Neo-technocratic theories emerged.

Neotechnocratic concepts in sociology have two branches: theoretical and empirical.

The theoretical branch includes futurological theories: these are the concepts of the “third wave” of O. Toffler, the “information society” of D. Bell, the “scientific society” of M. Poniatowski, etc. They arose in connection with the development of computer technology and new means of communication. These theories argue that the most important transformations of society that have occurred over 100 years have a technological basis.

Analyzing the social significance of technology, O. Toffler draws a project for the future society. In this post-industrial society, property loses importance as a criterion of social differentiation (stratification). The level of education and knowledge becomes such a criterion. The conflict between labor and capital gives way to the conflict between knowledge and incompetence. Society is a system of interacting factors: technology, politics, spiritual values, with the economy oriented towards quality of life.

Another branch of neotechnocratic theories in modern sociology is of an applied nature. Its tasks are the study and assessment of technological risk. New technologies have led to the fact that risk has become an integral part of the modern world.

This direction is focused on studying specific facts of social life using special methods. The modern version of empirical sociology arose in the 20-30s in the USA. The reasons for its emergence are associated with the theoretical and methodological helplessness of early positivism, with an attempt to overcome theorizing, as well as with the emergence of ideas about the need for an objective empirical substantiation of social phenomena. The development of empirical sociology was caused by the strengthening of the reform movement, of which sociology became a part. Great hopes are placed on her. The progress of sociology and other social sciences makes it possible to abandon the ideas of social revolution and propose, as its substitute, some social reforms that normalize social life.

Empirical sociology can be divided into two branches: applied and academic.

The applied branch solves practical problems. The object of the academic branch is systemic knowledge of individual areas of social life.

2.10. Structural functionalism

The crisis of empiricism revealed the need to create new sociological concepts that would reflect the new socio-economic and political reality; structural functionalism became such a concept.

Representatives of this direction T. Parsons, R. K. Merton, K. Davis, and others revived some ideas of positivist limitationism. Structural functionalism is similar to positivism due to its orientation toward such canons of the scientific method as “objectivity” and “freedom from values.” The most influential concept of structural functionalism is that of T. Parsons.

Social life in the concepts of structural functionalism is considered as an infinite number and intertwining of human interactions. To study the mechanisms and structures that ensure social order, balance, stability and survival of the system and various subsystems of society is the main task of sociology from the point of view of functionalism.

The emphasis on the stable aspects of a social system leads to a search for stable elements in the system itself (this concept is quite abstract). What is stable in a mobile system? This is the structure of social life.

To understand the stability of the system, another basic concept of structural functionalism is important - function. A function is a contribution to the stability of the system. This is what is done by the structural elements. A function is a certain way of connecting parts and the whole. This is a set of actions to meet the needs of the system in one of its functions. Any element of the system can have a function.

The system defines sets of functional behavior: law, public opinion, etc. With a functional approach, it is not necessary to explain phenomena, but to look for the function that they perform. In order to find an explanation for something, it is necessary to clarify the entire set of phenomena: negative, side, unforeseen, and the functions that they perform, without taking into account only the observed consequences. This research program is the essence of the functional approach. Moreover, the main thing for the system is the ability to survive.

What is necessary for the system to survive? Minimal consistency and minimal specialization within it. If a system (society) is able to survive, then there must be solidarity between its members. Solidarity is the main feature of the system.

A common property of the system is interdependence. Interdependence is a certain order of interaction between the elements included in the system, i.e. the existence of control, restrictions in behavior, taking into account the behavior of others.

All systems operate in complex interaction with the environment. Any system has internal and external orientation axes. The internal orientation of the system is associated with such a property as consummation - the accumulation of energy to achieve a goal, i.e. rational energy: information, knowledge, etc.

External orientation is associated with adaptation and integration. When the orientation axes are superimposed (according to T. Parsons' scheme), an invariant set of functional problems arises. These include: 1) adaptation, 2) goal achievement, 3) integration, 4) reproduction of structure, 5) stress relief. At the level of the social system, the adaptation function is provided by the economic system, the integration function by beliefs, morality, socialization institutions (family, education), etc. Using this set you can describe the system at any level.

A special type of social system is society. Society is integrity, self-sufficiency, which is ensured by its main structures, among which are:

1) social systems (public institutions);

2) the cultural system, which is a regulatory force;

3) behavioral systems that set principles and rules;

4) personal systems (repertoire of roles and personal motivation).
According to T. Parsons, the functional approach allows one to analyze both the level of social institutions and large-scale systems, and the socio-psychological level. Such an analysis is possible within the framework of the “theory of social action” he developed.

What does the concept of “social action” mean? In T. Parsons it comes close to the concept of behavior. But this is not just an act of behavior, but an action that has an internal logical structure. According to T. Parsons, human action is a self-organizing, specific system. He sees the specificity of human action in symbolism (the presence of mechanisms such as language, customs), normativity (action must take place in a space where there are contracts), voluntarism (the presence of a certain autonomy from the environment and subjective definitions of the situation).

The subject's action is determined by social, sociocultural, deep psychological processes, and comes down to the choice of alternative types of actions within the framework of a general adaptation to the prevailing norms and requirements.

3. CONCEPTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN SOCIOLOGY: UNDERSTANDING SOCIOLOGY, ITS VARIETIES

The development of sociology reflects the evolution of society. The instability of socio-economic development in the 50-60s of the XX century, determining the decline in the prestige of structural functionalism, brings to the fore subjectivist and relativistic theories: existentialism, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, etc.

These trends are called anti-scientist, emphasizing their opposition to positivism. They become dominant in the 70s and 80s.

What do anti-scientist movements have in common? They are united by highlighting human relations, an emphasis on the moral aspect of the relationship between the subject and the object of knowledge, and an orientation towards the formation of social relations in order to free a person from the pressure of social structures. The foundation for their development were the ideas expressed in sociology in the period from the 20s to the early 50s of our century.

3.1. The essence of “understanding” sociology

One of the most important areas of modern sociology is “understanding” sociology. Within its framework, such directions as phenomenological sociology, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, etc. were formed. The leading role in the emergence of this direction belongs to the concept of understanding, formulated in the works of M. Weber, G. Simmel, as well as in the philosophy of life of V. Dilthey.

The concept of “understanding” sociology is based on the ideas of E. Durkheim about social reality as a special kind of reality that can be known using the appropriate method, which is understanding.

Understanding means comprehending the subjective meaning of an individual’s actions, which is a prerequisite for social interactions for the creation of social structures and institutions on their basis.

ALMATY UNIVERSITY OF ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS

FACULTY OF RADIO ENGINEERING AND COMMUNICATIONS

Department of Social Sciences

Semester work No. 1 on

topic "Empirical Sociology"

Completed by: student of group RET-12-9

Dzharkin A.B.

Checked: Art. Ave. Apashev S.B.

Almaty 2013

Introduction

This work is devoted to the study of empirical sociology as an independent direction of sociology and the study of the influence of the Chicago School on the formation and development of empirical sociology. The work reflects the concept and characteristic features of empirical sociology, the reasons for the “Americanization” of this direction of sociology, as well as the activities of representatives of the Chicago School.

The relevance of our research lies in the fact that it complements and significantly expands the range of our knowledge in empirical sociology. The methodological basis of the work is the principles of science and objectivity. The use of these principles allowed us to provide the most accurate and objective information regarding our issue.

When writing this semester work, the goal was set: to characterize the concept of “empirical sociology”, study its characteristic features, consider the reasons for the “Americanization” of empirical sociology and determine the significance of the Chicago School in the history of sociology.

Achieving this goal involves performing the following tasks:

conduct an analysis of sources and scientific works related to empirical sociology

give a clear description of empirical sociology

consider the reasons for the emergence of empirical sociology as an independent branch of sociology

show the influence and reasons for the “Americanization” of empirical sociology

highlight the role of representatives of the Chicago School in improving the methodology of sociological research

describe and evaluate the tasks performed by empirical sociology.

Empirical sociology appeared together with theoretical sociology, but was formalized as an independent direction only in the 20s. XX century and is gaining importance as a specific area of sociological research with special traditions and logic of development. Its emergence, on the one hand, is associated with criticism of the “metaphysical”, “abstract” nature of sociology, and on the other, with practical needs in the field of managing capitalist production. Although its role in the development of sociology as a science was highly appreciated from the first steps, the organization and conduct of empirical sociological research was determined, first of all, by the needs of society. Empirical sociology is a complex of sociological research focused on the collection and analysis of specific facts of social life using special methods (surveys, questionnaires, interviews and static methods, etc.).

The emergence of empirical sociology was associated with attempts to create sociology on the principles of positivism: the search for an objective empirical basis for social phenomena, the participation of social science in the process of improving social relations. In the early stages of its development, empirical research existed parallel to theoretical sociology as a private interest of enthusiasts of various professions and individual sociologists.

In the 40s - 50s. empirical sociology in the USA was able to reach a new level of development largely due to the influence on it of the method of structural-functional analysis, developed during these years by T. Parsons and his followers. But structural functionalism itself was born from a completely empirically oriented sociology, which took into account the important role and significance of theory in empirical research. With the advent of the structural-functional approach to the analysis of social phenomena and processes, empirical research is increasingly moving from the socio-psychological level to the level of analysis of social institutions and large-scale systems. But at the same time, attention to the point of view of the subject of action is maintained, although it loses its independent meaning. In methodological terms, the “principle of understanding” is replaced by the “principle of explanation.” But the more thoroughly the conceptual apparatus was developed in T. Parsons’ “theory of social action,” the less suitable it was for conducting empirical research. A special modification of the key concepts of structural functionalism was needed, which began in the late 40s. R. Merton and which continues to this day, taking into account the achievements in the field of empirical sociological research that sociologists of various schools and directions have achieved.

The characteristic features of empirical sociology are:

) identification of scientific sociology with empirical sociology;

) the gap between theoretical and empirical research due to different levels of generalization, features of the conceptual apparatus of theories;

) passion for mathematical methods of data analysis, leading in some cases to a narrowing of the research horizon and the rejection of theoretical generalizations.

Within empirical sociology there are two branches - academic and applied.

The academic task is seen in the creation of a system of scientific knowledge about individual areas and phenomena of social life (sociologists of the city, village, family, youth, art, etc.), which are used as a methodological basis for specific empirical research.

Applied empirical research, in contrast to academic research, is aimed at solving clearly defined practical problems and is directly related to the performance of social engineering functions. I must say, in the 70-80s. There has been a sharp increase in the volume of applied research.

For empirical sociology as a whole, the problem of connecting academic with applied empirical sociology in order to overcome fragmentation in order to obtain comprehensive, unified information that can ultimately give a picture of social life as a whole remains important and unresolved.

Empirical sociology was officially recognized as a direction after the publication of the five-volume work of American sociologists W. A. Thomas (1863-1947) and F. Znaniecki (1882-1958) “The Polish Peasant in Europe and America” (1918-1921). This work was noticeably different from the social research conducted so far in the sense that its authors abandoned any general (“metaphysical”) theories, and based all the research on factual materials: surveys, questionnaires, personal documents - letters, autobiographies. Thus, two volumes are entirely devoted to letters from Polish families, and these letters are grouped without any commentary by relationship: husband - wife, children - parents. The third volume contains the autobiography of an emigrant peasant who moved from Poland (Lyubotin) to the USA. This approach to research, distinguished by its concreteness in the full sense of the word, was perceived as a new word in sociology, and very soon it became popular in the scientific community and was called “empirical.” The authors themselves, Thomas and Znaniecki, focusing on the individual psyche and its evolution in connection with changes in the social environment, came to the conclusion about the existence of so-called “persistent patterns of social behavior.” This conclusion, which received full confirmation and support, was later supplemented in a certain way and brought to the scale of a scientific concept used in theories of deviant behavior, criminology, social norms and pathology. Briefly, the essence of this concept can be formulated as follows. Each individual has an inherent characteristic that persists throughout life and does not depend on changes in economic, social, everyday, cultural, etc. the structure of social behavior, formed in its main features in early childhood and adolescence.

Thomas and Znaniecki reflected another feature of individual behavior in a social environment with the concept of “definition of the situation.” It includes, on the one hand, individual attitudes, and on the other, an orientation towards group values and norms. In unity, both serve as an indicator of the individual’s adaptability to the social group. Already at its inception, empirical sociology discovered features that were later not only consolidated, but also developed. Firstly, it is “psychologized”: it examines social phenomena through the prism of psychological teachings and pays main attention to the psychological side of human relations. Secondly, the philosophy of neopositivism had a noticeable influence on empirical sociology.

Thus, one of its founders, Thomas, denied any general laws in public life; for him they meant only the most probable “statistics”. Thirdly, the utilitarianism of empirical sociology is striking. Diverse and very diverse empirical studies are carried out at the request of firms, banks, newspapers, radio and television companies, government services, etc.

Reasons for the “Americanization” of empirical sociology

empirical sociology Chicago school

If we keep in mind both types of empirical sociology - academic and applied, then the first one appeared first. It was with university research in the United States that empirical sociology emerged. We have named a country that is rightly considered the founder of empirical sociology. Why the USA? This is an interesting and important question, the answer to which will help clarify many circumstances of the emergence and development of empirical sociology.

Among the general reasons, first of all, it is necessary to mention the rapid pace of American economic development at the beginning of the 20th century. (until the end of the 1920s - the emergence of the crisis and the Great Depression), with which no European country could compare. Enormous capital was concentrated in the United States, stimulating economic, material and technical progress. Along with the economic growth, the level of material well-being of workers increased just as quickly due to the intensification of their work and the growth of its productivity. The development of large industry and the concentration of capital led to deepening social differentiation, increased social injustice, corruption and other negative social consequences with which the development of capitalism is traditionally associated.

American cities grew noticeably. The massive influx of immigrants from European, Asian, African and Latin American countries who sought to settle in the cities gave them a new look. Along with the business center (downtown), areas appeared that were developed by populations of different skin colors and different nationalities, which received appropriate names ("white", "black", "yellow", Italian, Chinese, Polish, etc.), arose like this called ghettos (in which discriminated national minorities settled, primarily black ghettos), suburban residential areas, etc.

The entire economic, social, and political atmosphere of American society of that period was extremely favorable for the development of science about specific problems of social life. It was a kind of “nutrient broth” for empirical sociology. As an educational discipline, it gained access not only to higher education institutions, but also to secondary educational institutions and colleges.

The rapid progress of empirical sociology and its integration into the fabric of American society was also facilitated by the strong influence of the ideology and philosophy of pragmatism and instrumentalism, which emphasized the practical side of any activity that should lead to the achievement of useful and measurable effective results. It was this direction of research that was characteristic of empirical sociology.

Initially, since the 1920s, empirical sociology was characterized by an absolutization of its own role. It manifested itself in the following characteristic features: a) separation from theory and proclamation of one’s own results as the most reliable and scientific; b) reducing any scientific sociology to empirical sociology, identifying with it; c) passion for mathematical methods and truly blind faith in their impeccable zero; d) refusal of major theoretical generalizations; e) passion for purely sociological research methods and underestimation of general scientific ones.

It is clear that in general for sociology these features are more negative than positive. However, they made it possible in a short period of time (one and a half to two decades), by contrasting empirical research with sociological theories, to displace the latter from the forefront of sociological science as a whole, forming among a certain (mainly business) part of the members of American society the conviction that the future of this science lies precisely in empirical sociology. However, we will repeatedly return to the question of the relationship between empirical and theoretical sociology in the course of analyzing the main periods of the current stage of development of this science.

The Chicago School and its significance in the history of sociology

The Chicago School of Sociology - one of the first schools in the social sciences, occupied a dominant position in American sociology in the period 1915 - 1935. and had a significant influence on the development of sociology. The sociology of the Chicago School was formed on the basis of the world's first sociological department, headed by Small. The main distinctive features of Chicago School sociology are, first of all, the organic combination of empirical research with theoretical generalizations; putting forward hypotheses within the framework of a single organized program aimed at specific practical goals. Another feature of it is the breadth of theoretical orientation, the combination of different approaches and methods, among which there are no definitely dominant ones.

The city's research was based on the social-ecological theory of Park and Burgess. The first claim to leadership in this area of sociology was the work of Thomas and Znaniecki, “The Polish Peasant in Europe and America.” An important role in the formation of the “classical” concept of social ecology (human ecology) of Park-Burgess and in the emergence of the “school” in Chicago was played by the characteristics of this city, since the development of localist and reformist orientations of this school is associated with the solution of specific urban problems. The combination of research programs with the educational process at the university contributed to the emergence of a fundamentally new nature of university education, its connection with the solution of specific empirical problems. Urban studies were subordinated (in the spirit of reformism) to the main task of establishing “social control” and “consent”. The sociological theory of the Chicago School is characterized by a contradiction between “realism” at the macro level (“the development of society as an integral organism”) and “nominalism” at the micro level (“society as interaction”). In general, the methodological orientation does not contrast “soft” ethnographic methods with “hard” quantitative ones: these methods, as a rule, are combined and complementary. Subsequently, the significance of the sociology of the Chicago School remained for the sociology of the city, and at present its ideas are especially relevant for the so-called “environmental sociology”.

The starting point of the socio-ecological views of the Chicago School is the idea of society as an organism that has not only a sociocultural, but also a biotic level. The latter forms the basis of the social process and ultimately determines the social organization of society. Park viewed sociology as a natural science about the collective behavior of people, to explain which it is legitimate to apply the concepts and postulates of biology. In the social process, Park identified four main types of interaction: competition, conflict, adaptation, assimilation. At the same time, competition was interpreted as a human form of the general struggle for survival, which is subsocial and largely unconscious in nature. Just as in the plant world biological competition gives rise to a certain natural order, so in society economic competition gives rise to that type of natural order that theorists of the Chicago School designated as ecological. Economic competition produces the territorial and occupational structure of the population, which is necessary for the division of labor and organized economic interdependence. As social groups become aware of competition, it can take the form of conflict. Conflicts turn into adaptation and end with assimilation - the process of interpenetration of social groups and deep contacts of individuals in which there are no conflicts.

A distinctive feature of the approach of Chicago School researchers to social problems was that they sought to consider the latter primarily from the point of view of the physical location of social groups in the structure of the natural environment (city). On this methodological basis, social processes and phenomena of such a large city as Chicago were studied: urbanization<#"justify">Conclusion

During this semester's work, we studied the concept and main features of empirical sociology, examined the reasons for the “Americanization” of empirical sociology, and also determined the significance of the Chicago School in the history of empirical sociology.

Based on the work done, the following conclusions can be drawn:

the emergence of empirical sociology, on the one hand, is associated with criticism of the “metaphysical”, “abstract” nature of sociology, and on the other, with practical needs in the field of managing capitalist production.

the characteristic features of empirical sociology are: identification of scientific sociology with empirical sociology; the gap between theoretical and empirical research due to different levels of generalization and features of the conceptual apparatus of theories; passion for mathematical methods of data analysis, leading in some cases to a narrowing of the research horizon and the rejection of theoretical generalizations.

the entire economic, social, and political atmosphere of American society of that period was extremely favorable for the development of empirical sociology.

The features of the Chicago School are: the development of special research tools that combine naturalism at the macro level and psychologism at the micro level; an explanation of the evolution of society by analogy with the adaptation of an organism to the environment; study of the informal aspects of social life, manifested in observed interpersonal interactions; priority of “qualitative” research methods.

In my opinion, it is very important to focus on the tasks of empirical sociology, which are to describe, explain and predict social reality. Based on the above, it should be noted that empirical sociology is more of an applied nature and is aimed at solving pressing practical issues of social life.

Literature

1. Aron R. Stages of development of sociological thought / General. ed. and preface P.S. Gurevich. - M.: Publishing group "Progress" - "Politics", 1992.

Contemporary American sociology. Digest of articles. M., 1994. - 296 p.

Vorontsov A.V., Gromov I.A. History of sociology of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Part 1. Western sociology. - M., 2005

Valentina Sergeevna Sycheva No. 4. P. 48-56. Historical sketch of budget studies in Western Europe and the USA

Chapter 4 empirical sociology

Empirical sociology in the form of social research originated in three European countries - England, France and Germany, but was especially widely developed at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. in USA.

Social research was carried out in England and France back in the 17th century, i.e. since the times of “political arithmetic” and “social physics” (long before the emergence of the word “sociology”). English “political arithmetic” of the 17th century. (William Petty, John Graunt, Gregory King and Edmund Halley) developed methods for quantitative research of social processes; in particular, J. Graunt applied them in 1662 to the analysis of mortality rates. The methodology and methods of empirical research were developed mainly by natural scientists. Many outstanding naturalists (E. Halley, P. Laplace, J. Buffon, A. Lavoisier) were among the founders of sociology.

In the early stages, theoretical and empirical sociology developed in some isolation from each other. The gap between theory and empiricism, under which the formation of classical sociology of the 19th century took place, was aggravated by the fact that, on the one hand, the macrosociological theories of Comte and Spencer fundamentally did not allow verification at the micro level, on the other hand, they were focused only on the past (sociology in general was formed precisely as historical sociology), and empirical research was devoted to the pressing problems of modern society. This was the case until the end of the 19th century, until Durkheim and Weber took up methodology in earnest. Only in the 20s of the XX century. The unification of theoretical and empirical sociology begins, a quantitative (as opposed to the qualitative in Durkheim, Simmel, Tönnies and Weber) methodology is developed, the prominent representatives of which were P. Lazarsfeld, R. Merton, J. Landberg and others.

Empirical sociology in Europe was formed not in universities (centers of scientific thought), but in the practical sphere - among civil servants, entrepreneurs, doctors, natural scientists, and teachers. Its emergence was stimulated by the practical needs of capitalist society, the development of which in the 19th century. led to rapid urban growth (intensive urbanization), polarization of poverty and wealth (as a consequence of intensive industrialization), pauperization (impoverishment) of the population and an increase in crime (phenomena inevitable at the stage of initial accumulation of capital). During this period, there was a growth of various kinds of social movements that sought to attract the attention of the authorities and the public to the social vices and troubles that society was undergoing, advocating social reforms and education of the population. In England and the USA, the “social survey movement” was active.

At the beginning of the 19th century. There is a kind of boom in social empirics. After a long break, regular population censuses were resumed in England and France (1801), and a system of statistical services and societies was formed, uniting enthusiasts of empirical research (Manchester and London Statistical Societies, the Center for General Statistics of France, etc.). Social information, including from industrial enterprises, is collected through church parishes and state financial inspectorates, parliamentary commissions, charitable organizations, government and individuals.

In England, John Sinclair's monumental study of agricultural labor, A Statistical Description of Scotland (21 volumes), had a great influence on the development of empirical social research. A specially compiled questionnaire addressed the problems of the gender, age and professional qualification structure of the population, the state of rural labor and crafts. James Kay-Shuttleworth's study “The Moral and Physical Conditions of the Textile Workers of Manchester” (1832) concerned the sanitary living conditions of the workers. A significant contribution to English empirical science was the research of the Liverpool entrepreneur and shipowner Charles Booth (1840-1916). His focus on empirical study of the problems of poverty, occupation and living conditions in an industrial city was the result of practical rather than academic interest. Published in 1889-1903. The 17-volume work “The Life and Work of People in London” was distinguished by its careful elaboration of the methods and techniques for collecting and analyzing data. C. Booth is known for being at the origins of the movement that studied the ecology of the city and the social mapping of urban areas. The statistical description covered a comparative analysis of the living conditions of various segments of the population, the connection between poverty and employment, working conditions and regularity of income. For three years, Booth lived in the areas of London's poor and conducted thousands of interviews with employers, trade union leaders, and workers. For example, Booth's report on the state of religiosity in London is based on 1,800 interviews. He created a new classification of the population into three classes (lower, middle and higher), and compared the living and working conditions of workers in various industries. The founder of the Fabian (socialist) Society, Beatrice Webb (1858-1943), who later with her husband Sidney Webb (1859-1947) would write a famous work on the history of the labor movement, “The History of Trade Unionism” (1894), actively participated in Booth’s research. The evolution of various social institutions is traced using rich documentary material.

In France, Louis Villarmé is considered one of the founders of empirical sociology. The former doctor of the Napoleonic army published many works on social hygiene, his two-volume work “Summary of the physical and moral condition of workers in paper, wool and silk manufactories” (1840) is especially famous. A significant role in the development of social empirics was made by the works of Alexandre Paran-Duchatelet “Public Hygiene” (1836) and “Prostitution in Paris” (1834), Andre Guerry - “Essays on Moral Statistics of France” (1832), where a connection was established between the level of industrial development of departments and the crime rate. A noticeable mark was left by the so-called monographic studies of working families by Frederic Le Play (1806-1882). His six-volume work “European Workers” (1877-1879) provides an exhaustive typology of working families by lifestyle, profession and budget, information on the technical and economic development of industries, professional advancement of young workers, and living conditions. His technique of searching for indicators for measuring and diagnosing social relations was further developed in modern sociology. He created an entire school in France (named after him), whose representatives - Henri de Tourville, Edmond Demolin and others - developed the doctrine of geographical determinism. According to this concept, natural conditions determine the type and nature of labor activity.

But the most notable among the empiricists was, perhaps, the French-Belgian mathematician, one of the largest statisticians of the 19th century. Adolphe Quetelet (1796-1874). His name in the history of science is associated with the transition of social statistics from the collection and description of facts to the establishment of stable correlations between indicators, or statistical patterns. Quetelet’s work “On Man and the Development of His Abilities, or Experience of Social Life” (1835) will help sociologists move from the speculative derivation of unverifiable “laws of history” to inductively derived and statistically calculated social patterns. Essentially, from this moment we can begin to count sociology (in Quetelet’s terminology, “social physics”) as a rigorous, empirically based science. Several striking achievements of Quetelet can be highlighted: 1) the discovery of statistical patterns; 2) the concept of average values and the “average person”, according to which the arithmetically average value obtained in the distributions of answers to questions is, as it were, ontologized and takes on an independent life in the average typical representative of a given group or society; 3) establishment of a social law as a stable tendency for changes in average values or as a stable correlation between several characteristics; 4) methodological rules for formulating survey questions. A. Quetelet recommended asking only questions that: a) are necessary and can be answered; b) do not arouse suspicion among people; c) are understood equally by the entire population of respondents; d) provide mutual control.

The impetus for social surveys was given by Quetelet’s discovery that “trajectories” of population movement can be calculated with sufficient accuracy (albeit inferior to the accuracy of astronomical observations), as well as convincing statistical calculations by Malthus regarding the faster growth of the birth rate compared to the growth of crop yields.

In English and French empirical sociology, the following main directions can be distinguished: 1) political arithmetic (W. Petty and J. Graunt) - the simplest quantitative study of social phenomena; 2) social physics (A. Quetelet) - empirical quantitative studies of human physical characteristics and the establishment of statistical patterns of social phenomena using complex mathematical procedures (understood as a theoretical discipline); 3) social hygiene (E. Chadwick, L. Villarme, A. Paran-Duchatelet) - an empirical description of the sanitary working and living conditions of urban industrial workers, classification of social indicators of public health based on surveys, interviews and observation in order to develop practical recommendations for subsequent carrying out charitable social reforms; 4) moral statistics (A. Gerry, J. Kay-Shuttleworth) - collection and analysis of quantitative data on the moral and intellectual characteristics of various segments of the population in order to develop decisions in the field of social policy and social management (one of the sources of social engineering); 5) sociography (Le Play school) - a monographic description of certain territorial or professional communities, not necessarily using quantitative data processing methods, but relying on statistics and observation, the results of which are usually used to analyze the dynamic (historical) state of an object at different times. Sociography often includes, for example, studies conducted by B. and S. Webb, as well as F. Engels (“The Condition of the Working Class in England”). The justification for the status of sociography as a descriptive type of research, identical to empirical sociology as a whole, was given by F. Tönnies.

In Germany, these areas developed as a secondary phenomenon. At the beginning of the 19th century. German statistics is a conglomerate of information on geography, history, demography, economics, medicine, and the emergence of empirical sociology itself occurs in the second half of the 19th century. through borrowing previously established ideas of the French and English empirical schools. Thus, in the 60-70s, the ideas of Guerry, Quetelet, Le Play, which were not distinguished by scientific novelty, were spreading in Germany, under whose influence specific studies were organized, including the work and life of workers, Ernst Engel (author of the famous “budget law”), Adolf Wagner and Wilhelm Lexis (who developed a mathematical model of mass behavior).

The main and, in fact, the only center for organizing and conducting empirical research in Germany was the Society for Social Policy (established in 1872), which played an outstanding role in European intellectual life. The activities of the Society are associated with the work of leading representatives of the German historical school of political economy (therefore they are often called German social politicians), in particular G. Schmoller, as well as M. Weber, A. Weber, F. Tönnies. The highest activity of the Society occurred in the 80-90s of the 19th century. Its activities are characterized by preliminary collective discussion of the program for the upcoming research, identification of key problems on which it was planned to collect primary information, and their direct translation into the formulation of survey questions, which were then sent to “experts” (landowners, entrepreneurs, officials, teachers and priests). The collected materials were published without deep processing, since social politicians had little interest in methodology.

For the first time, M. Weber paid serious attention to research methodology and the correct formulation of questions. Thanks to his efforts, the Society's empirical activities rose to a qualitatively new level. Throughout his life, M. Weber participated directly or indirectly in six studies. In 1890-1891 The Society organized an empirical study of agrarian relations in Germany. Weber compiled a program and questionnaire for him, and published the work “The Condition of Agricultural Workers in Germany East of the Elbe” (1892). Weber was fluent in the methodology of quantitative (probability theory) and comparative historical data analysis. Some details of his first study are known. Thus, out of 3 thousand questionnaires sent out in 1890, the return rate was 70%, and out of 10 thousand expert forms in 1891, only one thousand were returned. Weber loved to describe the results of his research in detail: his first scientific report contained 890 pages, 120 of which included tables of incomes and budgets of working families. In 1908, at the suggestion of his younger brother Alfred M. Weber began a series of surveys of industrial workers. The empirical basis was materials from factory statistics, observations and interviews with workers. The methodological justification for the program alone contained 60 pages. In addition, Weber prepared several lengthy methodological documents. One of them - “Work Plan” - included 27 topics. In his instructions to the interviewer, Weber, in particular, recommended starting with a description of the technological characteristics of the enterprise, and then moving on to the historical and geographical features of the formation of the workforce, qualifications and training problems.

In the first quarter of the 20th century. The USA becomes the world leader in the development of empirical sociology. By 1910, about 3 thousand empirical studies using the latest statistical techniques had been carried out in the country. Already in the first methodological program - physicalism - J. Landberg (30s) declared the central principles of quantitative methodology: operationalism, quantification and behaviorism. Thanks to the efforts of P. Lazarsfeld, G. Blaylock, P. Bridgman, W. Ogborn, R. Merton, G. Zetterberg, the mathematical, statistical and methodological foundation of empirical sociology is being laid. The penetration of mathematics into sociology has enriched it with cluster, factor, correlation, longitudinal and other methods of data analysis, and interaction with psychology has led to the development of precise methods for measuring phenomena: tests, scales, sociometry, projective, psychodiagnostic procedures, etc.

Empirical research refers to the collection of primary data, carried out according to a specific program and using the rules of scientific inference, providing representative information at the disposal of the scientist. The technology (methodology and methods) of data collection answers the question “how to obtain data?”, and the data themselves represent the result of a research search and answer the question “what was obtained in the study?” The strategy of empirical research is determined by the research program, which includes a theoretical model of the subject of research, an empirical scheme of the object of research, methods and techniques for obtaining data, analysis and interpretation of data, but does not include a scientific report that describes the results. Let's consider the main elements of empirical research.

Theoretical model of the subject of research. When constructing a theoretical model of the subject of research (TMPI), we are interested in its properties, states, and logical connections with other objects. The task of empirical research is to check to what extent our theoretical assumptions are justified, to establish connections and patterns that are not available when studying real objects. Theory is verified by practice.

TMPI is a logical diagram of all conceivable or theoretically predictable connections that exist between the abstract objects we have identified. TMPI cannot cover the entire real-life set of abstract objects related to the problem or problem situation being studied. As a rule, TMPI includes a part, or a certain selection of singular theoretical formations, which at the moment were recognized by a sociologist as scientifically significant for solving a specific problem. To solve another specific problem, another TMPI is built. Various models are used in sociology. The created models are superimposed on each other, which saves the efforts of researchers at the stage of creating TMPI and increases the degree of continuity of scientific knowledge. In addition, the use of a partially modified TMPI, once successfully constructed by one of the sociologists, increases the reliability of the data obtained and guarantees against the need to “reinvent the wheel,” but only of worse quality.

Thus, TMPI is a set of logically interrelated abstract concepts that describe the subject area of research.

Categories, concepts and terms are a kind of building material for the TMPI structure, while conceptualization, specification and operationalization can be called means of creating a theoretical model.

The construction of TMPI occurs largely through an operation such as conceptualization. Conceptualization is the assignment or determination of the theoretical meaning of words and thereby turning them into concepts. Thus, the concept of “car” can be subsumed under the more general concept of “vehicle”. An economist will subsume it under the concept of “consumer product”, a psychologist - under the “idea of the father”, a sociologist - under the concept of “status symbol”. Thus, conceptualization is the subsuming of the particular under the general, but within the framework and means of a specific science. Conceptualization is a way of organizing mental work that allows one to move from material and primary theoretical concepts to more and more abstract constructs, which ultimately reflect the assumptions on which TMPI is based.

The conceptual scheme sets a theoretical understanding of the integrity of the object and supports systemic ideas about it in research procedures.

The purpose of conceptualization is to designate the universe of currently possible ways of working at a theoretical level, to ensure the internal coherence of the concepts and constructs used, to offer a vision of the subject fields of work in a research mode, to set an idea of the level organization of knowledge.

If conceptualization sets a vector of movement to a higher level of knowledge organization, then operationalization (the procedure for establishing a connection between a conceptual scheme and methodological tools) is a “reverse” movement to concepts (concepts), their specification. Operationalization in science is a kind of decomposition of the whole into its constituent parts.

The whole most often represents a very complex, theoretically constructed formation, which is almost impossible to directly observe. No one has ever seen the universe, not even through a super-powerful telescope. Astronomers are able to see only its individual fragments, say, the Milky Way, and then from them theoretically construct the phenomenon as a whole. No one has ever seen capitalism, but we encounter its concrete manifestations every day.

However, in practice, the sociologist encounters simple variables or concepts, for example, “electoral attitude,” which can be translated into one survey question: “Who are you going to vote for?” and thereby operationalize them.

In the process of operationalization, the sociologist may encounter serious difficulties. This occurs when the operationalization is carried out incorrectly, i.e. when a very specific and clear concept is subsumed by signs that characterize a completely different phenomenon. So, in the 90s, when there was a complete turn in Russia from socialism to capitalism, people were faced with such wild manifestations of the new system that they wondered: is this capitalism? An increase in crime, criminal business, fraud, corruption, a decline in the material standard of living, an increase in mortality and other empirically observable signs did not correlate with the image of “civilized capitalism” that Russian democrats strived for.

Scientists proposed different names: wild capitalism, uncivilized market, Soviet capitalism, capitalism with Russian specifics, the period of primitive accumulation of capital, capitalism in a backward country, etc. But they did not choose any. Why is it so difficult to choose an appropriate name? But because behind the “name” lies social reality. Before defining the reality of the 90s with the concept of “Soviet capitalism” or some other concept, it must be described theoretically. In other words, you first need to establish the essence of the phenomenon, its structure, laws of functioning, forms of manifestation. And if it turns out that the observed empirical signs correlate with the theoretical concept, scientists have the right to combine the theoretical concept and its empirical signs into one whole.

If we build, for example, a theoretical model for studying investment behavior, then we identify in it five elements that are common for any model: subject, means, motives, object, result. By themselves, they are completely abstract and do not contain indications of which subjects (categories of the population) are supposed to be studied. Indeed, in investment behavior the subjects of action are some groups of the population, while in deviant or theatrical behavior they are completely different. Clarifying exactly which categories of the population are included in the subject in an investment study constitutes specification. Then the remaining four elements of the theoretical model of the subject of study are specified accordingly.

Once all five elements have been brought to the same level of specificity, the sociologist begins operationalization. Operationalization and operational definition are not the same procedure. In the process of operational definition of concepts, the sociologist establishes observable signs of theoretical meanings, for example, recorded by measuring instruments. In sociology, “operationalization” involves the translation of theoretical concepts into a system of measurable indicators.

The diagram shows that the construction of TMPI requires: 1) the mandatory implementation of specification and operationalization procedures; 2) that the number of abstract elements in a theory is always less than the number of concrete concepts and even less than the empirically fixed characteristics.

Empirical signs indicate what methods of collecting information a sociologist should resort to. For example, how to determine the income of the rich: ask the respondent directly, get access to a bank account, interview neighbors or competitors? How can you find out about the results of investment behavior? Will a pensioner or an engineer say that he put money in the bank, hoping to get high interest rates, and went broke? Another clue for choosing research methods is the structure of the subject of social action. Once it is established that it includes the poor, middle and rich strata, the sociologist can decide on the population from which the sample population is drawn.

In conclusion, let's talk about the history of the issue. The concept of operational definition was first introduced into scientific circulation in the work “The Logic of Modern Physics” (1927) by Percy W. Bridgman. A passionate advocate of operationalization in sociology was George A. Landsberg in his book The Foundations of Sociology (1939). He believed that measurement is a way of defining things. Bridgman believed that a concept should be defined not through the properties of an object, but through the operations performed by scientists on it. True, a certain difficulty arises here: what to do in the case when one object can be measured in several different ways, methods and operations (in sociology - different scales)? Bridgman argued that in this case the scientist obtains different concepts. Or: by changing the operation, we, in essence, change the concept itself.

The most heated and fruitful discussions in American literature regarding the problem of operationalization took place in the 30s and 40s. They allowed us to raise a number of important questions related to the measurement process and its impact on scientific theory. In particular, any attempts to construct a theory that lacked testable hypotheses and operationalized concepts were subject to harsh criticism. It was from this moment that the era of empirical sociology began as a fundamental discipline focused on the strict canons of the scientific method. The key requirement of this method is the construction of a research program, which was discussed in this chapter.

An example of concretization and operationalization. The family can be attributed to the general concepts of sociology (categories), since it is not an isolated phenomenon localized in space and time (the Petrov family), not just a small social group among other groups (gangs, labor brigades, sports teams, etc. ), but a fundamental institution of society, one of the most important and complex forms of social organization. The family is not only the primary unit of modern society, but the genetic cell of human society as such, which has gone through a long historical evolution simultaneously with the evolution of society. The number of values in this category is not a countable (finite) set. New meanings and facets of this philosophical and social phenomenon are being discovered all the time. This means that family is a categorical (general scientific) concept.

Sociologists were never satisfied with the family as a philosophical and sociological category - it seemed too vague and ambiguous. They gave it a new, concrete sociological meaning, but retained the old name. In sociology, a family is a small group based on marriage or consanguinity, whose members are bound by a common life, mutual assistance, moral and legal responsibility. In economics, a family is a group of people living together in the same living space, leading a joint household and being in relationships of kinship, marriage or guardianship. Ethnographers did not agree with economists and sociologists, who emphasized such an important point as the continuity of generations. From now on, a family existing over a long period of time was proposed to be understood as a wholeness that is divided and restored in each generation without breaking continuity. The ability to restore its unity in each subsequent generation is a very important characteristic of a family. It describes what scientists call the family life cycle.

In this regard, a methodological question arises: what should a scientist do if he knows, on the one hand, the excessive abstractness of the philosophical and sociological category of family, and on the other, the logical incompleteness of private scientific definitions of family proposed by sociologists, economists and ethnographers? Put them together and propose a new, albeit overly cumbersome, but all-encompassing definition of family? Identify common features in particular formulations and accept them as a correct and very comprehensive definition? Should we use the concept of “household” instead of the concept of family in empirical research?

A household is considered to be each individual living and eating separately, a family or a group of people living and eating together, but not necessarily related to each other. This, for example, could be a group of three students living in the same apartment. But in this case, a household is a broader empirical concept than a family, since it has a larger class of empirical referents, because along with stable kinship groups, it will have to include any random associations, for example, students living in the same room or “shuttle traders” renting an apartment. A kind of paradox arose: the concept of household turned out to be empirically broader, but theoretically narrower than the category of family.

In addition, the new concept or term gravitates more towards economics than to sociology, and even more so to ethnography. Indeed, running a joint household is not a sign of a family, but of a household. In this case, we did not solve the posed problem of combining different approaches, since we took one of the specific scientific terms as common to all sciences. True, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two approaches - sociological and economic. They can be combined by giving the following formulation: a family is a household, i.e. a group of people living together, united by kinship or property, and also by a common budget.

Since household has been included as a part or element in the definition of family, it should be considered only a narrowly instrumental term having one meaning. Can family and household now be considered synonymous, i.e. interchangeable concepts? “Of course not,” comes the answer. The ambiguity came only after careful methodological analysis, and in practice, where it is used very rarely, a fair amount of confusion arises.

When an empirical sociologist ineptly operationalizes the family, he makes several mistakes: 1) he does not specify the family as a philosophical and sociological category into a particular scientific category, but immediately carries out the operationalization, i.e. carries out the prohibited translation of categories into terms (the family as a social institution is deciphered with the help of the household as a jointly run household by an organized or unorganized group of people); 2) replaces one word with another, namely asks about the family, but gives a definition that can also be applied to the household. When forming a questionnaire, he naively asks respondents: how many people live in your family? And, just in case, he gives a security question: how many people live in your apartment? It turns out that the same respondents often give different answers to both questions, even in cases where they live not in a communal apartment, but in a separate apartment. The number of empirical referents for a family turns out to be greater than for the term “apartment”. Trying to find out the reasons for the discrepancy, critics have established the following circumstances. Many respondents consider family to be their elderly parents, brothers and sisters who live elsewhere but are part of a single kinship system. They act as blood relatives, but do not maintain a common household. In the minds of the respondent, the family is more of a spiritual and related community than a blood-economic unit. In order to avoid confusion, a sociologist needs to replace family with household and give a decoding of the latter, and pass the concept of family through an independent block of questions that would reveal this multidimensional phenomenon from different angles.

As we have found out, theories operate with categories, concepts and terms. However, it is known that when constructing his theoretical tools, a sociologist also operates with such units as variables. According to R. Dabin, the theoretical model begins precisely with the variables, the relationship of which forms the subject of research. When science translates words into numbers, it uses the language of variables.

Almost all sociological concepts need to be translated into a system of variables. This means that sociological concepts and terms - directly or indirectly (through the procedure of operationalization) - can be expressed in the language of measurements, just as almost all concepts of physics are expressed in the language of numbers. Let's make a reservation right away: categories practically cannot be translated into the language of variables. These are very abstract concepts that are almost impossible to ascribe to without first specifying them, i.e. without transferring to a lower rank, the quantitative dimension. One of the founders of quantitative methodology, G. Blaylock, spoke unambiguously about this: theoretical sociologists often use overly abstract concepts that are fundamentally different from the variables that are the working tool of empirical sociologists. In an effort to bridge the gap, Blaylock proposed calling variables indicators of abstract concepts.

Variable is a concept in sociology that can take on different meanings. For example, income or education can take on many values expressed in numbers, say, income of 100-500, 501 -1000, 1001 -1500 rubles, primary education (4 grades), incomplete secondary (9 years), complete secondary (11 years ), higher (5 years) or incomplete secondary, secondary, technical secondary, higher incomplete and higher completed, etc. Gender has only two meanings: male and female. However, it is a variable. Age has a range of values, say, 1 year, 20 years, 75 years, etc. The spread in the ages of respondents is called variation, specific age values are called values, and the totality of all values forms a variable. Thus, the “age” variable has values from 0 to 70 (average life expectancy) or more years. The values are grouped into intervals: 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 years, etc. They can be grouped differently, it all depends on the objectives of the study. The intervals of values for the “age” variable in the case of pensioners begin from 55 to 60 years.

“Belonging to a social class” is also a variable, since there can be several classes in society. The same variables are property, status, social tension, etc. Among the most frequently used sociological variables are social status, income, gender, age, marital status, and nationality. It is not necessary for the variable to have a quantitative expression. Gender is a typical example of a sociological variable that cannot be expressed in numbers.

Some important concepts in science are not variables. For example, culture is not a variable at all. But if we are talking about the culture of a specific country or society, then this concept can be somehow measured, which means it can be made a variable. In this case, measurement can be understood as a conceptual definition of a concept using a dictionary. If the dictionary gives a conceptual definition, then the instructions on how to measure it are an operational definition. The first type of variable definition is also called qualitative, and the second – quantitative insofar as it involves a measurement procedure.

The conceptual definition of a variable (or concept) means a verbal decoding or definition, usually borrowed from a dictionary. Conceptual means a theoretical definition in which more abstract concepts are deciphered through more concrete ones.

The operational definition of a variable means a set of actions (specified in the instructions), with the help of which in reality one can observe (obtain through a questionnaire or interview) the empirical signs of the real phenomenon described by a given variable and record them in measurable quantities.

Currently, sociological research is being conducted in almost all countries of the world, which is most often of an applied nature, i.e. carried out according to a social order, and are intended to solve social problems that arise in the life of people. Fundamental sociological research is usually carried out by scientists at universities, and in a number of countries also at scientific institutes. This specialization of work among sociologists arose in the 1930s. of our century in the USA in connection with the emergence and wide dissemination of social orders for conducting certain sociological studies.

The Chicago School of Empirical Sociology was a specific department of the university that existed in the first half of the 20th century with fairly early established traditions of research activity and enormous influence on the activities of sociologists throughout the country, and then throughout the world.

Empirical sociology appears together with theoretical sociology, but acquires independent significance only at the beginning of our century as a specific area of sociological research with special traditions and logic of development. Although its role in the development of sociology as a science was highly appreciated from the first steps, the organization and conduct of empirical sociological research was determined primarily by the needs of society.

Empirical sociology is a complex of sociological research focused on the collection and analysis of specific facts of social life using special methods (surveys, questionnaires, interviews and static methods, etc.).

In the 40s - 50s. empirical sociology in the USA was able to reach a new level of development largely due to the influence on it of the method of structural-functional analysis, developed during these years by T. Parsov and his followers. But structural functionalism itself was born from a completely empirically oriented sociology, which took into account the important role and significance of theory in empirical research. With the advent of the structural-functional approach to the analysis of social phenomena and processes, empirical research is increasingly moving from the socio-psychological level to the level of analysis of social institutions and large-scale systems. But at the same time, attention to the point of view of the subject of action is maintained, although it loses its independent meaning. In methodological terms, the “principle of understanding” is replaced by the “principle of explanation.” But the more thoroughly the conceptual apparatus was developed in T. Parsons’ “theory of social action,” the less suitable it was for conducting empirical research. A special modification of the key concepts of structural functionalism was needed, which began in the late 40s. R. Merton and which continues to this day, taking into account the achievements in the field of empirical sociological research that sociologists of various schools and directions have achieved.

The characteristic features of empirical sociology are:

1) identification of scientific sociology with empirical sociology;

2) the gap between theoretical and empirical research due to different levels of generalization and features of the conceptual apparatus of theories;

3) passion for mathematical methods of data analysis, leading in some cases to a narrowing of the research horizon and the rejection of theoretical generalizations.

Within empirical sociology there are two branches - academic and applied.

Structural functionalism

By the mid-30s. US sociologists have accumulated significant empirical material, having carried out a large number of empirical sociological studies, varied in scope and subject matter, which, however, did not go beyond individual regions of the country and concerned only some problems of social life. Analyzing empirical facts, they achieved only partial generalizations of particular phenomena or their classes, increasing the number of “discrete theories”. But the more such theories appeared, the more acutely was the need to develop a systematic theory of science, which itself is the most important indicator of its maturity, realized.

One of the leading teachers of the sociological department at Harvard University, USA, Talcott Parsons (1902-0979), took up the solution to this problem, and in 1937 he published his first book, “The Structure of Social Action.”

Structural functionalism is one of the main methodological approaches in modern social science. Its essence consists in identifying the elements of sociological interaction that are subject to research and determining their place and meaning (function) in some connection.

In one form or another, the functional approach existed in all sociological concepts where society was considered in a systemic way. At the same time, an analogy between society and the organism arose and turned out to be very stable. Accordingly, in society, similarities of organs were sought, the functioning of which ensures the viability of the whole. Plato and Aristotle, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Rousseau had such ideas. The identification of sociology itself as a science has been going on since the 19th century. parallel to the transformation of biology into a special science. This led to broader analogies with the functionally divided organism and the first sociological formulations of the concept of function. Thus, Spencer in “Foundations of Sociology” proves that society is an organism; the presence of structural differentiation in it speaks of a “correct understanding” of functions as “dissimilar parts” of the political body and the living body. Durkheim gives more subtle and meaningful definitions: “The word function is used in two rather different meanings. Either it means a system of vital movements - abstracting from their consequences, or it expresses the relationship of correspondence that exists between these movements and the known needs of the body. Ask what is the function of the division of labor , it means exploring what need it meets.”

T. Parsons, assessing the results of the development of empirical sociology in the USA in the 20-30s, noted that attempts to build “exhaustive empirical generalizations” could not be completed successfully, as in even earlier attempts to establish the significance of various “factors” in determining social phenomena. He emphasized that factor theories (for example, the theory of social formations of K. Marx) only delayed the development of the theory of the social system, since, in his opinion, they ignored the fundamental principle of any science - the study of facts only of phenomena specific to it.

The goal of T. Parsons' theoretical work is to draw attention to the previously neglected “social elements” of the social system as dominant factors based on the development of a generalizing conceptual scheme for the analysis of social systems. Each researcher tries to achieve an “adequate” description of empirical reality, when definite and empirically testable (verifiable) answers are given “to all relevant scientifically important questions.” And the importance of these issues is determined by the logical structure of the generalized conceptual scheme.

T. Parsons considered values (patterns) as the main elements of a special mechanism of communication between social and cultural systems, and norms as social phenomena that regulate specific social processes and relationships.

According to the basic provisions of the structural-functional theory of social systems, society is a social system that has reached the highest level of self-sufficiency in relation to the environment. This point of view of T. Parsons on society as a social system is completely at odds with what was generally accepted in the 50s. view of society as a collection of specific individuals and comes close to K. Marx’s view of society as the sum of connections and relationships in which individuals are with each other. But, unlike K. Marx, members of society are considered by Parsons as part of the environment of a given social system, the internal conditions of its functioning. T. Parsons paid close attention to the main aspects of the tendency towards class conflict in the Western type of social system: individual choice of occupations and some equality of opportunity; a certain opposition between power and subordinates: the development of different cultures within a differentiated social structure; the dependence of the differentiation of families on differences in the position of people in the professional structure, the impracticability in practice of absolute equality of opportunity. Taking them into account, it is possible to create conditions to prevent latent conflicts from developing into class confrontation.