23 Experiment Basics
Learning Objectives
- Explain what an experiment is and recognize examples of studies that are experiments and studies that are not experiments.
- Distinguish between the manipulation of the independent variable and control of extraneous variables and explain the importance of each.
- Recognize examples of confounding variables and explain how they affect the internal validity of a study.
- Define what a control condition is, explain its purpose in research on treatment effectiveness, and describe some alternative types of control conditions.
What Is an Experiment?
As we saw earlier in the book, an experiment is a type of study designed specifically to answer the question of whether there is a causal relationship between two variables. In other words, whether changes in one variable (referred to as an independent variable) cause a change in another variable (referred to as a dependent variable). Experiments have two fundamental features. The first is that the researchers manipulate, or systematically vary, the level of the independent variable. The different levels of the independent variable are called conditions. For example, in Darley and Latané’s experiment, the independent variable was the number of witnesses that participants believed to be present. The researchers manipulated this independent variable by telling participants that there were either one, two, or five other students involved in the discussion, thereby creating three conditions. For a new researcher, it is easy to confuse these terms by believing there are three independent variables in this situation: one, two, or five students involved in the discussion, but there is actually only one independent variable (number of witnesses) with three different levels or conditions (one, two or five students). The second fundamental feature of an experiment is that the researcher exerts control over, or minimizes the variability in, variables other than the independent and dependent variable. These other variables are called extraneous variables. Darley and Latané tested all their participants in the same room, exposed them to the same emergency situation, and so on. They also randomly assigned their participants to conditions so that the three groups would be similar to each other to begin with. Notice that although the words manipulation and control have similar meanings in everyday language, researchers make a clear distinction between them. They manipulate the independent variable by systematically changing its levels and control other variables by holding them constant.
Manipulation of the Independent Variable
Again, to manipulate an independent variable means to change its level systematically so that different groups of participants are exposed to different levels of that variable, or the same group of participants is exposed to different levels at different times. For example, to see whether expressive writing affects people’s health, a researcher might instruct some participants to write about traumatic experiences and others to write about neutral experiences. The different levels of the independent variable are referred to as conditions, and researchers often give the conditions short descriptive names to make it easy to talk and write about them. In this case, the conditions might be called the “traumatic condition” and the “neutral condition.”
Notice that the manipulation of an independent variable must involve the active intervention of the researcher. Comparing groups of people who differ on the independent variable before the study begins is not the same as manipulating that variable. For example, a researcher who compares the health of people who already keep a journal with the health of people who do not keep a journal has not manipulated this variable and therefore has not conducted an experiment. This distinction is important because groups that already differ in one way at the beginning of a study are likely to differ in other ways too. For example, people who choose to keep journals might also be more conscientious, more introverted, or less stressed than people who do not. Therefore, any observed difference between the two groups in terms of their health might have been caused by whether or not they keep a journal, or it might have been caused by any of the other differences between people who do and do not keep journals. Thus the active manipulation of the independent variable is crucial for eliminating potential alternative explanations for the results.
Of course, there are many situations in which the independent variable cannot be manipulated for practical or ethical reasons and therefore an experiment is not possible. For example, whether or not people have a significant early illness experience cannot be manipulated, making it impossible to conduct an experiment on the effect of early illness experiences on the development of hypochondriasis. This caveat does not mean it is impossible to study the relationship between early illness experiences and hypochondriasis—only that it must be done using nonexperimental approaches. We will discuss this type of methodology in detail later in the book.
Independent variables can be manipulated to create two conditions and experiments involving a single independent variable with two conditions are often referred to as a single factor two-level design. However, sometimes greater insights can be gained by adding more conditions to an experiment. When an experiment has one independent variable that is manipulated to produce more than two conditions it is referred to as a single factor multi level design. So rather than comparing a condition in which there was one witness to a condition in which there were five witnesses (which would represent a single-factor two-level design), Darley and Latané’s experiment used a single factor multi-level design, by manipulating the independent variable to produce three conditions (a one witness, a two witnesses, and a five witnesses condition).
Control of Extraneous Variables
As we have seen previously in the chapter, an extraneous variable is anything that varies in the context of a study other than the independent and dependent variables. In an experiment on the effect of expressive writing on health, for example, extraneous variables would include participant variables (individual differences) such as their writing ability, their diet, and their gender. They would also include situational or task variables such as the time of day when participants write, whether they write by hand or on a computer, and the weather. Extraneous variables pose a problem because many of them are likely to have some effect on the dependent variable. For example, participants’ health will be affected by many things other than whether or not they engage in expressive writing. This influencing factor can make it difficult to separate the effect of the independent variable from the effects of the extraneous variables, which is why it is important to control extraneous variables by holding them constant.
Extraneous Variables as “Noise”
Extraneous variables make it difficult to detect the effect of the independent variable in two ways. One is by adding variability or “noise” to the data. Imagine a simple experiment on the effect of mood (happy vs. sad) on the number of happy childhood events people are able to recall. Participants are put into a negative or positive mood (by showing them a happy or sad video clip) and then asked to recall as many happy childhood events as they can. The two leftmost columns of Table 5.1 show what the data might look like if there were no extraneous variables and the number of happy childhood events participants recalled was affected only by their moods. Every participant in the happy mood condition recalled exactly four happy childhood events, and every participant in the sad mood condition recalled exactly three. The effect of mood here is quite obvious. In reality, however, the data would probably look more like those in the two rightmost columns of Table 5.1. Even in the happy mood condition, some participants would recall fewer happy memories because they have fewer to draw on, use less effective recall strategies, or are less motivated. And even in the sad mood condition, some participants would recall more happy childhood memories because they have more happy memories to draw on, they use more effective recall strategies, or they are more motivated. Although the mean difference between the two groups is the same as in the idealized data, this difference is much less obvious in the context of the greater variability in the data. Thus one reason researchers try to control extraneous variables is so their data look more like the idealized data in Table 5.1, which makes the effect of the independent variable easier to detect (although real data never look quite that good).
| Idealized “noiseless” data | Realistic “noisy” data | ||
| Happy mood | Sad mood | Happy mood | Sad mood |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 4 | 3 | 6 | 3 |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| 4 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
| 4 | 3 | 8 | 2 |
| M = 4 | M = 3 | M = 4 | M = 3 |
One way to control extraneous variables is to hold them constant. This technique can mean holding situation or task variables constant by testing all participants in the same location, giving them identical instructions, treating them in the same way, and so on. It can also mean holding participant variables constant. For example, many studies of language limit participants to right-handed people, who generally have their language areas isolated in their left cerebral hemispheres[1]. Left-handed people are more likely to have their language areas isolated in their right cerebral hemispheres or distributed across both hemispheres, which can change the way they process language and thereby add noise to the data.
In principle, researchers can control extraneous variables by limiting participants to one very specific category of person, such as 20-year-old, heterosexual, female, right-handed psychology majors. The obvious downside to this approach is that it would lower the external validity of the study—in particular, the extent to which the results can be generalized beyond the people actually studied. For example, it might be unclear whether results obtained with a sample of younger lesbian women would apply to older gay men. In many situations, the advantages of a diverse sample (increased external validity) outweigh the reduction in noise achieved by a homogeneous one.
Extraneous Variables as Confounding Variables
The second way that extraneous variables can make it difficult to detect the effect of the independent variable is by becoming confounding variables. A confounding variable is an extraneous variable that differs on average across levels of the independent variable (i.e., it is an extraneous variable that varies systematically with the independent variable). For example, in almost all experiments, participants’ intelligence quotients (IQs) will be an extraneous variable. But as long as there are participants with lower and higher IQs in each condition so that the average IQ is roughly equal across the conditions, then this variation is probably acceptable (and may even be desirable). What would be bad, however, would be for participants in one condition to have substantially lower IQs on average and participants in another condition to have substantially higher IQs on average. In this case, IQ would be a confounding variable.
To confound means to confuse, and this effect is exactly why confounding variables are undesirable. Because they differ systematically across conditions—just like the independent variable—they provide an alternative explanation for any observed difference in the dependent variable. Figure 5.1 shows the results of a hypothetical study, in which participants in a positive mood condition scored higher on a memory task than participants in a negative mood condition. But if IQ is a confounding variable—with participants in the positive mood condition having higher IQs on average than participants in the negative mood condition—then it is unclear whether it was the positive moods or the higher IQs that caused participants in the first condition to score higher. One way to avoid confounding variables is by holding extraneous variables constant. For example, one could prevent IQ from becoming a confounding variable by limiting participants only to those with IQs of exactly 100. But this approach is not always desirable for reasons we have already discussed. A second and much more general approach—random assignment to conditions—will be discussed in detail shortly.
Treatment and Control Conditions
In psychological research, a treatment is any intervention meant to change people’s behavior for the better. This intervention includes psychotherapies and medical treatments for psychological disorders but also interventions designed to improve learning, promote conservation, reduce prejudice, and so on. To determine whether a treatment works, participants are randomly assigned to either a treatment condition, in which they receive the treatment, or a control condition, in which they do not receive the treatment. If participants in the treatment condition end up better off than participants in the control condition—for example, they are less depressed, learn faster, conserve more, express less prejudice—then the researcher can conclude that the treatment works. In research on the effectiveness of psychotherapies and medical treatments, this type of experiment is often called a randomized clinical trial.
There are different types of control conditions. In a no-treatment control condition, participants receive no treatment whatsoever. One problem with this approach, however, is the existence of placebo effects. A placebo is a simulated treatment that lacks any active ingredient or element that should make it effective, and a placebo effect is a positive effect of such a treatment. Many folk remedies that seem to work—such as eating chicken soup for a cold or placing soap under the bed sheets to stop nighttime leg cramps—are probably nothing more than placebos. Although placebo effects are not well understood, they are probably driven primarily by people’s expectations that they will improve. Having the expectation to improve can result in reduced stress, anxiety, and depression, which can alter perceptions and even improve immune system functioning (Price, Finniss, & Benedetti, 2008)[2].
Placebo effects are interesting in their own right (see Note “The Powerful Placebo”), but they also pose a serious problem for researchers who want to determine whether a treatment works. Figure 5.2 shows some hypothetical results in which participants in a treatment condition improved more on average than participants in a no-treatment control condition. If these conditions (the two leftmost bars in Figure 5.2) were the only conditions in this experiment, however, one could not conclude that the treatment worked. It could be instead that participants in the treatment group improved more because they expected to improve, while those in the no-treatment control condition did not.
Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. One is to include a placebo control condition, in which participants receive a placebo that looks much like the treatment but lacks the active ingredient or element thought to be responsible for the treatment’s effectiveness. When participants in a treatment condition take a pill, for example, then those in a placebo control condition would take an identical-looking pill that lacks the active ingredient in the treatment (a “sugar pill”). In research on psychotherapy effectiveness, the placebo might involve going to a psychotherapist and talking in an unstructured way about one’s problems. The idea is that if participants in both the treatment and the placebo control groups expect to improve, then any improvement in the treatment group over and above that in the placebo control group must have been caused by the treatment and not by participants’ expectations. This difference is what is shown by a comparison of the two outer bars in Figure 5.4.
Of course, the principle of informed consent requires that participants be told that they will be assigned to either a treatment or a placebo control condition—even though they cannot be told which until the experiment ends. In many cases the participants who had been in the control condition are then offered an opportunity to have the real treatment. An alternative approach is to use a wait-list control condition, in which participants are told that they will receive the treatment but must wait until the participants in the treatment condition have already received it. This disclosure allows researchers to compare participants who have received the treatment with participants who are not currently receiving it but who still expect to improve (eventually). A final solution to the problem of placebo effects is to leave out the control condition completely and compare any new treatment with the best available alternative treatment. For example, a new treatment for simple phobia could be compared with standard exposure therapy. Because participants in both conditions receive a treatment, their expectations about improvement should be similar. This approach also makes sense because once there is an effective treatment, the interesting question about a new treatment is not simply “Does it work?” but “Does it work better than what is already available?
The Powerful Placebo
Many people are not surprised that placebos can have a positive effect on disorders that seem fundamentally psychological, including depression, anxiety, and insomnia. However, placebos can also have a positive effect on disorders that most people think of as fundamentally physiological. These include asthma, ulcers, and warts (Shapiro & Shapiro, 1999)[3]. There is even evidence that placebo surgery—also called “sham surgery”—can be as effective as actual surgery.
Medical researcher J. Bruce Moseley and his colleagues conducted a study on the effectiveness of two arthroscopic surgery procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee (Moseley et al., 2002)[4]. The control participants in this study were prepped for surgery, received a tranquilizer, and even received three small incisions in their knees. But they did not receive the actual arthroscopic surgical procedure. Note that the IRB would have carefully considered the use of deception in this case and judged that the benefits of using it outweighed the risks and that there was no other way to answer the research question (about the effectiveness of a placebo procedure) without it. The surprising result was that all participants improved in terms of both knee pain and function, and the sham surgery group improved just as much as the treatment groups. According to the researchers, “This study provides strong evidence that arthroscopic lavage with or without débridement [the surgical procedures used] is not better than and appears to be equivalent to a placebo procedure in improving knee pain and self-reported function” (p. 85).
- Knecht, S., Dräger, B., Deppe, M., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Flöel, A., . . . Henningsen, H. (2000). Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 123(12), 2512-2518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.12.2512 ↵
- Price, D. D., Finniss, D. G., & Benedetti, F. (2008). A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 565–590. ↵
- Shapiro, A. K., & Shapiro, E. (1999). The powerful placebo: From ancient priest to modern physician. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ↵
- Moseley, J. B., O’Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., Menke, T. J., Brody, B. A., Kuykendall, D. H., … Wray, N. P. (2002). A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 81–88. ↵
Occurs when a sample is selected in such a way that it is not representative of the entire population and therefore produces inaccurate results.
The variable the experimenter measures (it is the presumed effect).
Learning Objectives
- Explain how information is created and how it evolves over time
- Select appropriate sources for your inquiry
- Describe the strengths and limitations of each type of source
Because a literature review is a summary and analysis of the relevant publications on a topic, we first have to understand what is meant by “the literature.” In this case, “the literature” is a collection of all of the relevant written sources on a topic.
Disciplines of knowledge
When drawing boundaries around an idea, topic, or subject area, it is helpful to think about how and where the information for the field is produced. For this, you need to identify the disciplines of knowledge production in a subject area.
Information does not exist in the environment like some kind of raw material, rather it is produced by individuals working within a particular field of knowledge who use specific methods for generating new information. Disciplines consume, produce, and disseminate knowledge. Looking through a university’s course catalog gives clues to disciplinary structure. Fields such as political science, biology, history, and mathematics are unique disciplines, as is social work. Each has its own logic for how and where new knowledge is introduced and made accessible.
You will need to become comfortable with identifying the disciplines that might contribute information to any search. When you do this, you will also learn how to decode the way people talk about a topic within certain disciplines. This will be useful when you begin a review of the literature in your area of study.
For example, think about the disciplines that might contribute information to a topic such as the role of sports in society. Try to anticipate the type of perspective each discipline might have on the topic. Consider the following types of questions as you examine what different disciplines might contribute:
- What is important about the topic to the people in that discipline?
- What is most likely to be the focus of their study about the topic?
- What perspective would they be likely to have on the topic?
In this example, we identify two disciplines that have something to say about the role of sports in society: the human service professions of nursing and social work. What would each of these disciplines raise as key questions or issues related to that topic? A nursing researcher might study how sports affect individuals' health and well-being, how to assess and treat sports injuries, or the physical conditioning required for athletics. A social work researcher might study how schools privilege or punish student athletes, how athletics impact social relationships and hierarchies, or the differences between boys' and girls' participation in organized sports. In this example, we see that a single topic can be approached from many different perspectives depending on how the disciplinary boundaries are drawn and how the topic is framed. Nevertheless, it is useful for a social worker to be aware of the nursing literature, as they could better appreciate the physical toll that sports take on athletes' bodies and how that may interact with other issues. An interdisciplinary perspective is usually a more comprehensive perspective.
Types of sources
“The literature” consists of the published works that document a scholarly conversation on a specific topic within and between disciplines. In “the literature,” you will find documents that explain the background of your topic. You will also find controversies and unresolved questions that can inspire your own project. By now in your social work academic career, you’ve probably heard that you need to get “peer-reviewed journal articles.” But what are those exactly? How do they differ from news articles or encyclopedias? This section of the text will help you to differentiate the different types of literature.
First, let’s discuss periodicals. Periodicals include journals, trade publications, magazines, and newspapers. While they may appear similar, particularly online, each of these periodicals has unique features designed for a specific purpose. Magazine and newspaper articles are usually written by journalists. They are intended to be short and understandable for the average adult, they contain color images and advertisements, and they are designed as commodities to be sold to an audience. Magazines may contain primary or secondary literature depending on the article in question. The New Social Worker is an excellent magazine for social workers. An article that is a primary source would gather information as an event happened, like an interview with a victim of a local fire, or relate original research done by the journalists, like the Guardian newspaper’s The Counted webpage which tracks how many people were killed by police officers in the United States. [1]
You may be wondering if magazines are acceptable sources of information in a research methods course. If you were in my class, I would advise against using magazines as sources. There are some exceptions like the Guardian page mentioned above or breaking news about a policy or community, but I advise against using magazines and newspapers because most of the information they publish is secondary literature. Secondary sources interpret, discuss, and summarize primary sources. Often, news articles will summarize a study done in an academic journal. Your job in this course is to read the original source of the information, in this case, the academic journal article itself. Journalists are not scientists. If you have seen articles about how chocolate cures cancer or how drinking whiskey can extend your life, you should understand how journalists can exaggerate or misinterpret results. Careful scholars will critically examine the primary source, rather than relying on someone else’s summary. Many newspapers and magazines also contain opinion articles, which are even less reputable, as the author will choose facts to support their viewpoint and exclude facts that contract their viewpoint. Nevertheless, newspaper and magazine articles are excellent places to start your journey into the literature, as they do not require specialized knowledge to understand and may inspire deeper inquiry.
Unlike magazines and newspapers, trade publications may take some specialized knowledge to understand. Trade publications or trade journals are periodicals directed to members of a specific profession. They often have information about industry trends and practical information for people working in the field. Trade publications are somewhat more reputable than newspapers or magazines because the authors are specialists on their field. NASW News is a good example of a trade publication in social work, published by the National Association of Social Workers. Its intended audience is social work practitioners who want to know about important practice issues. They report news and trends in a field but not scholarly research. They may also provide product or service reviews, job listings, and advertisements.
So, can you use trade publications in a formal research proposal? In my class, I would advise against it, as a main shortcoming of trade publications is their lack of peer review. Peer review refers to a formal process in which other esteemed researchers and experts ensure your work meets the standards and expectations of the professional field. While trade publications do contain a staff of editors, the level of review is not as stringent as academic journal articles. On the other hand, if you are doing a study about practitioners, then trade publications may be quite relevant sources for your proposal. As illustrated below, peer review is the part of the publication cycle that acts as the gate-keeper to ensure that only top-quality articles are published. While peer review is far from perfect, the process provides for stricter scrutiny of scientific publications.
In summary, newspapers and other popular press publications are useful for getting general topic ideas. Trade publications are useful for practical application in a profession and may also be a good source of keywords for future searching. Scholarly journals are the conversation of the scholars who are doing research in a specific discipline and publishing their research findings.
Types of journal articles
As you’ve probably heard by now, academic journal articles are regarded as the most reputable sources of information, particularly in research methods courses. Journal articles are written by scholars with the intended audience of other scholars (like you!) interested in the subject matter. The articles are often long and contain extensive references for the arguments made by the author. The journals themselves are often dedicated to a single topic, like violence or child welfare, and include articles that seek to advance the body of knowledge about their chosen topic.
Most journals are peer-reviewed or refereed, which means a panel of scholars reviews articles to decide if they should be accepted into a specific publication. Scholarly journals provide articles of interest to experts or researchers in a discipline. An editorial board of respected scholars (peers) reviews all articles submitted to a journal. Editors and volunteer reviewers decide if the article provides a noteworthy contribution to the field and if it should be published. For this reason, journal articles are the main source of information for researchers and for literature reviews. You can tell whether a journal is peer reviewed by going to its website. Usually, under the “About Us” section, the website will list the editorial board or otherwise note its procedures for peer review. If a journal does not provide such information, you may have found a “predatory journal.” These journals will publish any article—no matter how bad it is—as long as the author pays them. Not all journals are created equal!
A kind of peer review also occurs after publication. Scientists regularly read articles and use them to inform their research. A seminal article is “a classic work of research literature that is more than 5 years old and is marked by its uniqueness and contribution to professional knowledge” (Houser, 2018, p. 112). [2] Basically, it is a really important article. Seminal articles are cited a lot in the literature. You can see how many authors have cited an article using Google Scholar’s citation count feature when you search for the article. Generally speaking, articles that have been cited more often are considered more reputable. There is nothing wrong with citing an article with a low citation count, but it is an indication that not many other scholars have found the source to be useful or important.
Journal articles fall into a few different categories. Empirical articles apply theory to a behavior and reports the results of a quantitative or qualitative data analysis conducted by the author. Just because an article includes quantitative or qualitative results does not mean it is an empirical journal article. Since most articles contain a literature review with empirical findings, you need to make sure the findings reported in the study are from the author’s own analysis. Fortunately, empirical articles follow a similar structure—introduction, method, results, and discussion sections appear in that order. While the exact headings may differ slightly from publication to publication and other sections like conclusions, implications, or limitations may appear, this general structure applies to nearly all empirical journal articles.
Theoretical articles, by contrast, do not follow a set structure. They follow whatever format the author finds most useful to organize their information. Theoretical articles discuss a theory, conceptual model, or framework for understanding a problem. They may delve into philosophy or values, as well. Theoretical articles help you understand how to think about a topic and may help you make sense of the results of empirical studies. Practical articles describe “how things are done” (Wallace & Wray, 2016, p. 20). [3] They are usually shorter than other types of articles and are intended to inform practitioners of a discipline on current issues. They may also provide a reflection on a “hot topic” in the practice domain, a complex client situation, or an issue that may affect the profession as a whole.
No one type of article is better than the other, as each serves a different purpose. Seminal articles relevant to your topic area are important to read because of their influence on the field. Theoretical articles will help you understand the social theory behind your topic. Empirical articles should test those theories quantitatively or create those theories qualitatively, a process we will discuss in greater detail later in this book. Practical articles will help you understand a practitioner’s perspective, though these are less useful when writing a literature review, as they only present a single person’s opinions on a topic.
Other sources of information
As mentioned earlier, newspaper and magazine articles are good places to start your search, though they should not be the end of your search. Another source that students commonly flock to is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a marvel of human knowledge, as anyone can contribute to the digital encyclopedia. The entries for each Wikipedia article are overseen by skilled and specialized editors who volunteer their time and knowledge to making sure their articles are correct and up to date. Wikipedia is an example of a tertiary source. We reviewed primary and secondary sources in the previous section. Tertiary sources synthesize or distill primary and secondary sources. Examples of tertiary sources include encyclopedias, directories, dictionaries, and textbooks like this one. Tertiary sources are an excellent place to start, but are not a good place to end your search. A student might consult Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia of Social Work (available at http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/) to get a general idea of the topic.
As we’ve discussed, secondary and tertiary sources are great places to begin gathering background information on a topic, but as your study of the topic progresses towards your research project, you will have to begin using primary sources. Academic journal articles are one of the primary sources that we will discuss the most in this textbook, as they are an excellent source to use in formal research papers. However, it is important to understand how other types of sources can be utilized as well.
Books contain important scholarly information. They are particularly helpful for theoretical, philosophical, and historical inquiry. For example, in my research on self-determination for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, I needed to define and explore the concept of self-determination. I learned how to define it from the philosophical literature on self-determination and the advocacy literature contained in books. You can use books to learn definitions and key concepts, to identify keywords, and to find additional resources for further information. They will also help you to understand the scope of the topic, its underlying foundations, and how the topic has developed over time.
You may notice that some books contain chapters that resemble academic journal articles. These are called edited volumes, and they contain articles that may not have made it into academic journals or seminal articles that are republished in the book. Edited volumes are considered less reputable than journal articles, as they do not have as strong of a peer review process. However, papers in social science journals will often include references to books and edited volumes.
In addition to peer-reviewed academic journal articles and books, conferences are another great source of information. At conferences such as the Council on Social Work Education’s Annual Program Meeting or your state’s NASW conference, researchers present papers on their most recent research and obtain feedback from the audience. The papers presented at conferences are sometimes published in a volume called a conference proceeding, which highlights current discussions in a discipline and can lead you to scholars who are interested in specific research areas. If you are looking to use a conference proceeding as a source for your research paper, it is important to note that several factors can make them particularly difficult to find. Papers that are delivered at professional conferences are not always fully published in print or electronic form. The abstract of a paper may be available; however the full paper may only be available to the author(s). If you have any difficulty accessing a conference proceeding or paper, ask a librarian for assistance.
Another source of information is the gray literature, which is research and information released by non-commercial publishers, such as government agencies, policy organizations, and think-tanks. If you have already taken a policy class, perhaps you’ve come across the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (https://www.cbpp.org/). CBPP is a think tank, or a group of scholars, that conducts research and performs advocacy on social issues. Similarly, students often find the Centers for Disease Control website helpful for understanding the prevalence of social problems like mental illness and child abuse.
It is important to note that there are potential limitations to using gray literature as a source, such as the potential for biased information. Typically, think tanks and policy organizations have a specific viewpoint that they support. For example, there are conservative, liberal, and libertarian think tanks and policy organizations may be funded by private businesses to push a given message to the public. On the other hand, government agencies are generally more objective, though they may be less critical in their opinions of government programs than other sources. The main shortcoming of gray literature is the lack of peer review that is found in academic journal articles, though many gray literature sources are of good quality.
Additional sources of gray literature include dissertations and theses. These two sources are rich, and they often contain extensive reference lists that you can scan for further resources, however they are considered gray literature because they are not peer reviewed. The accuracy and validity of the paper itself may depend on the school that awarded the doctoral or master’s degree to the author. Having completed a dissertation myself, I know that they take a long time to write and a long time to read through. If you come across a dissertation that is relevant, it is a good idea to read the literature review and plumb the sources the author uses in your literature search. However, the data analysis from these sources is considered less reputable as it has not passed through peer review yet. Consider searching for journal articles by the author to see if any of the results passed peer review. You will also be thankful that journal articles are much shorter than dissertations and theses!
The final source of information we must talk about is webpages. My graduate research focused on substance abuse and drugs, and I was fond of reading Drug War Rant (http://www.drugwarrant.com/), a blog about drug policy. It provided me with breaking news about drug policy and editorial opinion about the drug war. I would never cite the blog in a research proposal, but it was an excellent source of information that warranted further investigation. Webpages will also help you locate professional organizations and human service agencies that address your research topic. The website of an organization may include social media feeds, reports, publications, or “news” sections that can clue you into important topics to study. Because anyone can begin their own webpage, they are usually not considered scholarly sources to use in formal writing, but they are still useful when you are first learning about a topic. Additionally, many advocacy webpages will provide references for the facts they cite, providing you with the primary source of the information.
As you think about each source, remember:
All information sources are not created equal. Sources can vary greatly in terms of how carefully they are researched, written, edited, and reviewed for accuracy. Common sense will help you identify obviously questionable sources, such as tabloids that feature tales of alien abductions, or personal websites with glaring typos. Sometimes, however, a source’s reliability—or lack of it—is not so obvious…You will consider criteria such as the type of source, its intended purpose and audience, the author’s (or authors’) qualifications, the publication’s reputation, any indications of bias or hidden agendas, how current the source is, and the overall quality of the writing, thinking, and design. (Writing for Success, 2015, p. 448). [4]
While each of these sources is an important part of how we learn about a topic, your research should focus on finding academic journal articles about your topic. These are the primary sources of the research world. While it may be acceptable and necessary to use other primary sources—like books, government reports, or an investigative article by a newspaper or magazine—academic journal articles are preferred. Finding these journal articles is the topic of the next section.
Key Takeaways
- Social work involves reading research from a variety of disciplines.
- While secondary and tertiary sources are okay to start with, primary sources provide the most accurate and authoritative information about a topic.
- Peer-reviewed journal articles are considered the best source of information for literature reviews, though other sources are often used.
- Peer review is the process by which other scholars evaluate the merits of an article before publication.
- Social work research requires critical evaluation of each source in a literature review
Glossary
Empirical articles- apply theory to a behavior and report the results of a quantitative or qualitative data analysis conducted by the author
Gray literature- research and information released by non-commercial publishers, such as government agencies, policy organizations, and think-tanks
Peer review- a formal process in which other esteemed researchers and experts ensure your work meets the standards and expectations of the professional field
Practical articles- describe “how things are done” in practice (Wallace & Wray, 2016, p. 20)
Primary source- published results of original research studies
Secondary source- interpret, discuss, summarize original sources
Seminal articles– classic work noted for its contribution to the field and its high citation count
Tertiary source- synthesizes or distills primary and secondary sources, such as Wikipedia
Theoretical articles– articles that discuss a theory, conceptual model or framework for understanding a problem
Image Attributions
Yahoo news portal by Simon CC-0
Research journals by M. Imran CC-0
Books door entrance culture by ninocare CC-0
Holding extraneous variables constant in order to separate the effect of the independent variable from the effect of the extraneous variables.
An effect where participants perform a task worse in later conditions because they become tired or bored.
Learning Objectives
- Identify and distinguish between micro-, meso-, and macro-level considerations with respect to the ethical conduct of social scientific research
One useful way to think about the breadth of ethical questions that might arise out of any research project is to think about potential issues from the perspective of different analytical levels. In Chapter 1, you learned about the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of inquiry and how a researcher’s specific point of focus might vary depending on her level of inquiry. Here we’ll apply this ecological framework to a discussion of research ethics. Within most research projects, there are specific questions that arise for researchers at each of these three levels.
At the micro-level, researchers must consider their own conduct and the rights of individual research participants. For example, did Stanley Milgram behave ethically when he allowed research participants to think that they were administering electronic shocks to fellow participants? Did Laud Humphreys behave ethically when he deceived his research subjects about his own identity? Were the rights of individuals in these studies protected? These are the type of questions you will want to ask yourself as a researcher when considering ethics at the micro-level.
At the meso-level, researchers should think about their duty to the community. How will the results of your study impact your target population? Ideally, your results will benefit your target population by identifying important areas for social workers to intervene. However, it is possible that your study may perpetuate negative stereotypes about your target population or damage its reputation. Indigenous people, in particular, have highlighted how social science has historically furthered their marginalization (Smith, 2013). [5] In addition to your target population, you must also consider your responsibilities to the profession of social work. By engaging in social work research, you are standing on the reputation that the profession has worked to build for over a century. Attending to research ethics helps fulfill your responsibilities to the profession, in addition to your target population.
Finally, at the macro-level, a researcher should consider their duty to society and the expectations that society has of them as a social worker. The most troubling and high-profile example of an ethical debate at the macro-level questions whether it is ethical to utilize or cite information obtained by the Nazi's horrendous human experiments during WWII (Moe, 1984). [6] Some argue that because the data were gathered in such an unquestionably unethical manner, they should never be used. Further, some who argue against using the Nazi data point out that not only were the experiments immoral but the methods used to collect data were also scientifically questionable. The data, say these people, are neither valid nor reliable and should therefore not be used in any current scientific investigation (Berger, 1990). [7]
On the other hand, some people argue that data themselves are neutral; that “information gathered is independent of the ethics of the methods and that the two are not linked together” (Pozos, 1992, p. 104). [8] Others point out that not using the data could inadvertently strengthen the claims of those who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. In his striking statement in support of publishing the data, medical ethics professor Velvl Greene (1992) says,
Instead of banning the Nazi data or assigning it to some archivist or custodial committee, I maintain that it be exhumed, printed, and disseminated to every medical school in the world along with the details of methodology and the names of the doctors who did it, whether or not they were indicted, acquitted, or hanged.…Let the students and the residents and the young doctors know that this was not ancient history or an episode from a horror movie where the actors get up after filming and prepare for another role. It was real. It happened yesterday (p. 169–170). [9]
While debates about the use of data collected by the Nazis are typically centered on medical scientists’ use of them, there are conceivable circumstances under which these data might be used by social scientists. Perhaps, for example, a social scientist might wish to examine contemporary reactions to the experiments, or perhaps the data could be used in a study of the sociology of science. What do you think? Should data gathered by the Nazis be used or cited today? What arguments can you make in support of your position, and how would you respond to those who disagree? Table 5.1 summarizes the key questions that researchers might ask themselves about the ethics of their research at each level of inquiry.
| Level of inquiry | Focus | Key ethics questions for researchers to ask themselves |
| Micro-level | Individual | Does my research impinge on the individual's right to privacy? |
| Could my research offend subjects in any way? | ||
| Could my research cause emotional distress to any of my subjects? | ||
| Has my own conduct been ethical throughout the research process? | ||
| Meso-level | Group | Does my research follow the ethical guidelines of my profession and discipline? |
| Could my research negatively impact a community? | ||
| Have I met my duty to those who funded my research? | ||
| Macro-level | Society | Does my research meet the societal expectations of social research? |
| Have I met my social responsibilities as a researcher? |
Key Takeaways
- At the micro-level, researchers should consider their own conduct and the rights of individual research participants.
- At the meso-level, researchers should consider the expectations of their profession, any organizations that may have funded their research, and the communities affected by their research.
- At the macro-level, researchers should consider their duty to and the expectations of society with respect to social scientific research.
A type of probability sampling in which larger clusters of individuals are randomly sampled and then individuals within each cluster are randomly sampled.
Is used to sample extra respondents from particularly small subgroups—allowing valid conclusions to be drawn about those subgroups.
A persons right to make their own choices and take their own actions free from coercion.
This means that researchers obtain and document people’s agreement to participate in a study after having informed them of everything that might reasonably be expected to affect their decision.
I can spend hours looking for articles online. I love browsing around and searching on Google Scholar for articles to download and read. However, I begin to feel overwhelmed once I realize that must read all the articles I've saved. It certainly takes a lot of time to do it correctly, even for faculty. In this chapter, we will learn how to understand and evaluate the sources you find. We will also review how your research questions might change as you start reading in your area of interest and learn more about your topic.
Chapter outline
- 3.1 Reading an empirical journal article
- 3.2 Evaluating sources
- 3.3 Refining your question
Content advisory
This chapter discusses or mentions the following topics: sexual harassment and gender-based violence, mental health, pregnancy, and obesity.
An agreement not to disclose participants’ personal information without their consent or some appropriate legal authorization.
When a participants name and other personally identifiable information is not collected at all.
Learning Objectives
- Define a paradigm and describe its significance
- Identify and describe the four predominant paradigms found in the social sciences
- Define theory
- Describe the role that theory plays in social work research
The terms paradigm and theory are often used interchangeably in social science, although social scientists do not always agree whether these are identical or distinct concepts. In this text, I will make a clear distinction between the two ideas. Regarding them as analytically distinct will provide a useful framework for understanding the connections between research methods and social scientific ways of thinking.
Paradigms in social science
For our purposes, we’ll define paradigm as a way of viewing the world (or “analytic lens” akin to a set of glasses) and a framework from which to understand the human experience (Kuhn, 1962). [10] It can be difficult to fully grasp the idea of paradigmatic assumptions because we are very ingrained in our own, personal everyday way of thinking. For example, let’s look at people’s views on abortion. To some, abortion is a medical procedure that should be undertaken at the discretion of each individual woman. To others, abortion is murder and members of society should collectively have the right to decide when, if at all, abortion should be undertaken. Chances are, if you have an opinion about this topic, you are pretty certain about the veracity of your perspective. Then again, the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion and yet be equally confident about the truth of their perspective. Who is correct?
You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the world works, or the way you believe the world should work. Perhaps your assumptions come from your political perspective, which helps shape your view on a variety of social issues, or perhaps your assumptions are based on what you learned from your parents or in church. In any case, there is a paradigm that shapes your stance on the issue. Those paradigms are a set of assumptions. Your classmate might assume that life begins at conception and the fetus’ life should be at the center of moral analysis. Conversely, you may assume that life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb and that a mother’s choice is more important than a fetus’s life. There is no way to scientifically test when life begins, whose interests are more important, or the value of choice. They are merely philosophical assumptions or beliefs. Thus, a pro-life paradigm may rest in part on a belief in divine morality and fetal rights. A pro-choice paradigm may rest on a mother’s self-determination and a belief that the positive consequences of abortion outweigh the negative ones. These beliefs and assumptions influence how we think about any aspect of the issue.
In Chapter 1, we discussed the various ways that we know what we know. Paradigms are a way of framing what we know, what we can know, and how we can know it. In social science, there are several predominant paradigms, each with its own unique ontological and epistemological perspective. Recall that ontology is the study of what is real, and epistemology is the study of how we come to know what is real. Let’s look at four of the most common social scientific paradigms that might guide you as you begin to think about conducting research.
Positivism is the first paradigm we will consider, as it is likely the first that comes to mind when thinking about science. Positivism is guided by the principles of objectivity, "knowability," and deductive logic. Deductive logic is discussed in more detail in next section of this chapter. The positivist framework operates from the assumption that society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. Positivism also calls for a value-free science, one in which researchers aim to abandon their biases and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth.
Another predominant paradigm in social work is social constructionism. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966) [11] are credited by many for having developed this perspective in sociology. While positivists seek “the truth,” the social constructionist framework posits that “truth” varies. Truth is different based on who you ask, and people change their definitions of truth all the time based on their interactions with other people. According to this paradigm, we create reality through our interactions and the interpretations that we have of our interactions, as opposed to the existence of an objective reality. Key to the social constructionist perspective is the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities.
Researchers operating within this framework take keen interest in how people come to socially agree, or disagree, about what is real and true. To better understand the idea of relativity and social constructionism, consider how certain hand gestures can connote different meanings across the globe. When someone raises their middle finger in North American culture, we can safely assume that neither the person raising the finger nor the person to whom the finger is being directed are very happy. Other gestures, such as the thumbs up, may carry similar eyebrow-raising meanings in other societies and cultures. While the thumbs up gesture may have a particular meaning in North American culture, that meaning is not shared across cultures (Wong, 2007). [12] So, what is the “truth” of the middle finger or thumbs up? It depends on the gesture’s intended meaning, the gesture’s interpretation, and the social context in which it occurs.
It would be a mistake to think of the social constructionist perspective as only individualistic. While individuals may construct their own realities, groups as small as married couples and as large as nations also agree on notions of truth. In other words, the meanings that we construct have power beyond the individual people who create them. Therefore, social constructionists are equally interested in the initial creation of meanings and the ways that people and groups work to redefine meanings.
A third paradigm is the critical paradigm. At its core, the critical paradigm is focused on power, inequality, and social change. Although some rather diverse perspectives are included here, the critical paradigm generally includes ideas developed by early social theorists, such as Max Horkheimer (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, & Virk, 2007), [13] and later works developed by feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser (1989). [14] Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Further, this paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. Researchers in the critical paradigm might begin with the knowledge that systems are biased against others, such as women or marginalized ethnic groups. Moreover, their research projects aim to foster positive change in the research participants and the systems being studied as well as collect important data. The critical paradigm not only studies power imbalances but also seeks to change them.
Finally, postmodernism is a paradigm that challenges almost every way of knowing that many social scientists take for granted (Best & Kellner, 1991). [15] While positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, postmodernists would say that there is not. While social constructionists may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder(s), postmodernists may claim that we can never know such truth. This is because postmodernists believe that researchers stamp their own truth on the investigation when studying and reporting on others' truths. Finally, while the critical paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, a postmodernist may ask whose power, inequality, change, reality, and truth are in question. As you might imagine, the postmodernist paradigm poses quite a challenge for researchers. How do you study something that may or may not be real or that is only real in your current and unique experience of it? This fascinating question is worth pondering as you begin to think about conducting your own research. Part of the value of the postmodern paradigm is its emphasis on the limitations of human knowledge. Table 6.1 summarizes each of the paradigms discussed here.
| Paradigm | Emphasis | Assumption |
| Positivism | Objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic | Society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. |
| Social Constructionism | Truth as varying, socially constructed, and ever-changing | Reality is created collectively. Social context and interaction frame our realities. |
| Critical | Power, inequality, and social change | Social science can never be truly value-free and should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. |
| Postmodernism | Inherent problems with previous paradigms. | Truth is always bound within historical and cultural context. There are no universally true explanations. |
Let’s work through an example. If we are examining a problem like substance abuse, what would a social scientific investigation look like in each paradigm? A positivist study may focus on precisely measuring substance abuse and finding out the key causes of substance abuse during adolescence. Forgoing the objectivity of precisely measuring substance abuse, social constructionist study might focus on how people who abuse substances understand their lives and relationships with various drugs of abuse. In so doing, it seeks out the subjective truth of each participant in the study. A study in the critical paradigm may investigate how people who abuse substances are an oppressed group in society, and then seek to liberate them from sources of oppression like punitive drug laws and internalized fear or shame. A postmodern study may chronicle one person’s self-reported journey into substance abuse and the changes that they experienced in their self-perception as they transitioned from recreational to problematic drug use. These examples should illustrate how one topic can be investigated across each paradigm.
Social science theories
Much like paradigms, theories provide a way to look at the world and understand human interaction. Paradigms are grounded in over-arching, general assumptions about the world, whereas theories describe more specific phenomena. A common definition for theory in social work is “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615). [16] At the core, theories can provide explanations for many phenomena. They help us answer the “why” and "how" questions we often have about the patterns we observe in social life. While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.”
Introductory social work textbooks acquaint students with the major theories in social work—conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, social exchange theory, and systems theory. As social workers study longer, they are introduced to more specific theories in their area of focus, as well as perspectives and models (e.g., the strengths perspective), which provide more practice-focused approaches to understanding social work.
As you have probably learned in social work theory, systems theorists view all parts of society as interconnected and focus on the relationships, boundaries, and flows of energy between these systems and subsystems (Schriver, 2011). [17] Conflict theorists are interested in power dynamics and how society's organization creates rewards and punishments. Symbolic interactionists focus on how meaning is created and negotiated through meaningful (i.e., symbolic) interactions. Finally, social exchange theorists examine how human beings base their behavior on a rational calculation of rewards and costs.
Just as researchers might examine the same topic from different levels of inquiry or paradigms, they could also investigate the same topic from different theoretical perspectives. In this case, their research questions could be the same, but the way they conceptualize their observations will be largely shaped by theory. Table 6.2 summarizes the main points of focus for each major theory and outlines how a researcher might study the same topic from each of the three perspectives.
| Theory | Focuses on | A study of substance abuse might examine |
| Systems | Interrelations between parts of society; how parts work together | How a lack of employment opportunities might impact rates of substance abuse in an area |
| Conflict | Who wins and who loses based on the way that society is organized | How the War on Drugs has impacted minority communities |
| Symbolic Interactionism | How meaning is created and negotiated though interactions | How people’s self-definitions as “addicts” helps or hurts their ability to remain sober |
| Social Exchange | How behavior is influenced by costs and rewards | Whether increased distribution of anti-overdose medications makes overdose more or less likely |
Within each area of specialization in social work, there are many other theories that aim to explain more specific types of interactions. For example, the study of sexual harassment includes different theories that posit varying explanations of why harassment occurs. One theory, first developed by criminologists, is called routine activities theory. It posits that sexual harassment is most likely to occur when a workplace lacks unified groups and when potentially vulnerable targets and motivated offenders are both present (DeCoster, Estes, & Mueller, 1999). [18] Other theories of sexual harassment, called relational theories, suggest that a person’s relationships, such as their marriages or friendships, are the key to understanding why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs and how people will respond to it when it does occur (Morgan, 1999). [19] Relational theories focus on the power that different social relationships provide (e.g., married people who have supportive partners at home might be more likely than those who lack support at home to report sexual harassment when it occurs). Finally, feminist theories of sexual harassment take a different stance. These theories posit that the organizational structure of our gender system, where those who are the most masculine have the most power, best explains why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs (MacKinnon, 1979). [20] As you might imagine, the theory a researcher applies to examine the topic of sexual harassment will shape the questions the researcher asks. It will also shape the explanations the researcher provides for why harassment occurs.
For an undergraduate student beginning their study of a new topic, it may be intimidating to learn that there are so many theories beyond what you’ve learned in your theory classes. What’s worse is that there is no central database of different theories on your topic. However, as you review the literature in your topic area, you will learn more about the theories that scientists have created to explain how your topic works in the real world. In addition to peer-reviewed journal articles, books are another valuable source to learn theories related to your topic. Books often contain works of theoretical and philosophical importance that are beyond the scope of an academic journal.
Paradigm and theory in social work
Theories, paradigms, levels of analysis, and the order in which one proceeds in the research process influence the questions we ask about the social world, how we ask them, and even what we may to find. A micro-level study of gangs will look much different than a macro-level study of gangs. In some cases, you could apply multiple levels of analysis to your investigation, but doing so isn’t always practical or feasible. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the different levels of analysis and be aware of which level you are employing. One’s theoretical perspective will also shape a study. In particular, the chosen theory will not only shape the way a question is asked but also which topic will be investigated in the first place. Further, commitment to one theory over another may limit the kinds of questions you pose and could result in missing other possible explanations.
Social science is not fundamentally biased due to the limitations of paradigms and theories, but at the same time, it can never be completely value-free. Social constructionists and postmodernists might point out that bias is always a part of research to at least some degree. Our job as researchers is to recognize and address our biases as part of the research process, if an imperfect part. We frame and conduct our work by using our own theories, levels of analysis, temporal processes, and paradigms. Understanding those frames and approaches is crucial not only for successfully embarking upon and completing any research-based investigation, but also for responsibly reading and understanding others’ work.
Key Takeaways
- Paradigms shape our everyday view of the world.
- Researchers use theory to help frame their research questions and to help them make sense of the answers to those questions.
- Applying the four key theories of social work is a good start, but you will likely have to look for more specific theories about your topic.
Glossary
Critical paradigm- a paradigm in social science research focused on power, inequality, and social change
Paradigm- a way of viewing the world and a framework from which to understand the human experience
Positivism- a paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, "knowability," and deductive logic
Postmodernism- a paradigm focused on the historical and contextual embeddedness of scientific knowledge; characterized by skepticism towards certainty and grand explanations in social science
Social constructionism- a paradigm based on the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities
Theory- “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615)
Learning Objectives
- Define a paradigm and describe its significance
- Identify and describe the four predominant paradigms found in the social sciences
- Define theory
- Describe the role that theory plays in social work research
The terms paradigm and theory are often used interchangeably in social science, although social scientists do not always agree whether these are identical or distinct concepts. In this text, I will make a clear distinction between the two ideas. Regarding them as analytically distinct will provide a useful framework for understanding the connections between research methods and social scientific ways of thinking.
Paradigms in social science
For our purposes, we’ll define paradigm as a way of viewing the world (or “analytic lens” akin to a set of glasses) and a framework from which to understand the human experience (Kuhn, 1962). [21] It can be difficult to fully grasp the idea of paradigmatic assumptions because we are very ingrained in our own, personal everyday way of thinking. For example, let’s look at people’s views on abortion. To some, abortion is a medical procedure that should be undertaken at the discretion of each individual woman. To others, abortion is murder and members of society should collectively have the right to decide when, if at all, abortion should be undertaken. Chances are, if you have an opinion about this topic, you are pretty certain about the veracity of your perspective. Then again, the person who sits next to you in class may have a very different opinion and yet be equally confident about the truth of their perspective. Who is correct?
You are each operating under a set of assumptions about the way the world works, or the way you believe the world should work. Perhaps your assumptions come from your political perspective, which helps shape your view on a variety of social issues, or perhaps your assumptions are based on what you learned from your parents or in church. In any case, there is a paradigm that shapes your stance on the issue. Those paradigms are a set of assumptions. Your classmate might assume that life begins at conception and the fetus’ life should be at the center of moral analysis. Conversely, you may assume that life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb and that a mother’s choice is more important than a fetus’s life. There is no way to scientifically test when life begins, whose interests are more important, or the value of choice. They are merely philosophical assumptions or beliefs. Thus, a pro-life paradigm may rest in part on a belief in divine morality and fetal rights. A pro-choice paradigm may rest on a mother’s self-determination and a belief that the positive consequences of abortion outweigh the negative ones. These beliefs and assumptions influence how we think about any aspect of the issue.
In Chapter 1, we discussed the various ways that we know what we know. Paradigms are a way of framing what we know, what we can know, and how we can know it. In social science, there are several predominant paradigms, each with its own unique ontological and epistemological perspective. Recall that ontology is the study of what is real, and epistemology is the study of how we come to know what is real. Let’s look at four of the most common social scientific paradigms that might guide you as you begin to think about conducting research.
Positivism is the first paradigm we will consider, as it is likely the first that comes to mind when thinking about science. Positivism is guided by the principles of objectivity, "knowability," and deductive logic. Deductive logic is discussed in more detail in next section of this chapter. The positivist framework operates from the assumption that society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. Positivism also calls for a value-free science, one in which researchers aim to abandon their biases and values in a quest for objective, empirical, and knowable truth.
Another predominant paradigm in social work is social constructionism. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman (1966) [22] are credited by many for having developed this perspective in sociology. While positivists seek “the truth,” the social constructionist framework posits that “truth” varies. Truth is different based on who you ask, and people change their definitions of truth all the time based on their interactions with other people. According to this paradigm, we create reality through our interactions and the interpretations that we have of our interactions, as opposed to the existence of an objective reality. Key to the social constructionist perspective is the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities.
Researchers operating within this framework take keen interest in how people come to socially agree, or disagree, about what is real and true. To better understand the idea of relativity and social constructionism, consider how certain hand gestures can connote different meanings across the globe. When someone raises their middle finger in North American culture, we can safely assume that neither the person raising the finger nor the person to whom the finger is being directed are very happy. Other gestures, such as the thumbs up, may carry similar eyebrow-raising meanings in other societies and cultures. While the thumbs up gesture may have a particular meaning in North American culture, that meaning is not shared across cultures (Wong, 2007). [23] So, what is the “truth” of the middle finger or thumbs up? It depends on the gesture’s intended meaning, the gesture’s interpretation, and the social context in which it occurs.
It would be a mistake to think of the social constructionist perspective as only individualistic. While individuals may construct their own realities, groups as small as married couples and as large as nations also agree on notions of truth. In other words, the meanings that we construct have power beyond the individual people who create them. Therefore, social constructionists are equally interested in the initial creation of meanings and the ways that people and groups work to redefine meanings.
A third paradigm is the critical paradigm. At its core, the critical paradigm is focused on power, inequality, and social change. Although some rather diverse perspectives are included here, the critical paradigm generally includes ideas developed by early social theorists, such as Max Horkheimer (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, & Virk, 2007), [24] and later works developed by feminist scholars, such as Nancy Fraser (1989). [25] Unlike the positivist paradigm, the critical paradigm posits that social science can never be truly objective or value-free. Further, this paradigm operates from the perspective that scientific investigation should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. Researchers in the critical paradigm might begin with the knowledge that systems are biased against others, such as women or marginalized ethnic groups. Moreover, their research projects aim to foster positive change in the research participants and the systems being studied as well as collect important data. The critical paradigm not only studies power imbalances but also seeks to change them.
Finally, postmodernism is a paradigm that challenges almost every way of knowing that many social scientists take for granted (Best & Kellner, 1991). [26] While positivists claim that there is an objective, knowable truth, postmodernists would say that there is not. While social constructionists may argue that truth is in the eye of the beholder(s), postmodernists may claim that we can never know such truth. This is because postmodernists believe that researchers stamp their own truth on the investigation when studying and reporting on others' truths. Finally, while the critical paradigm may argue that power, inequality, and change shape reality and truth, a postmodernist may ask whose power, inequality, change, reality, and truth are in question. As you might imagine, the postmodernist paradigm poses quite a challenge for researchers. How do you study something that may or may not be real or that is only real in your current and unique experience of it? This fascinating question is worth pondering as you begin to think about conducting your own research. Part of the value of the postmodern paradigm is its emphasis on the limitations of human knowledge. Table 6.1 summarizes each of the paradigms discussed here.
| Paradigm | Emphasis | Assumption |
| Positivism | Objectivity, knowability, and deductive logic | Society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically. |
| Social Constructionism | Truth as varying, socially constructed, and ever-changing | Reality is created collectively. Social context and interaction frame our realities. |
| Critical | Power, inequality, and social change | Social science can never be truly value-free and should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind. |
| Postmodernism | Inherent problems with previous paradigms. | Truth is always bound within historical and cultural context. There are no universally true explanations. |
Let’s work through an example. If we are examining a problem like substance abuse, what would a social scientific investigation look like in each paradigm? A positivist study may focus on precisely measuring substance abuse and finding out the key causes of substance abuse during adolescence. Forgoing the objectivity of precisely measuring substance abuse, social constructionist study might focus on how people who abuse substances understand their lives and relationships with various drugs of abuse. In so doing, it seeks out the subjective truth of each participant in the study. A study in the critical paradigm may investigate how people who abuse substances are an oppressed group in society, and then seek to liberate them from sources of oppression like punitive drug laws and internalized fear or shame. A postmodern study may chronicle one person’s self-reported journey into substance abuse and the changes that they experienced in their self-perception as they transitioned from recreational to problematic drug use. These examples should illustrate how one topic can be investigated across each paradigm.
Social science theories
Much like paradigms, theories provide a way to look at the world and understand human interaction. Paradigms are grounded in over-arching, general assumptions about the world, whereas theories describe more specific phenomena. A common definition for theory in social work is “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615). [27] At the core, theories can provide explanations for many phenomena. They help us answer the “why” and "how" questions we often have about the patterns we observe in social life. While paradigms may point us in a particular direction with respect to our “why” questions, theories more specifically map out the explanation, or the “how,” behind the “why.”
Introductory social work textbooks acquaint students with the major theories in social work—conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, social exchange theory, and systems theory. As social workers study longer, they are introduced to more specific theories in their area of focus, as well as perspectives and models (e.g., the strengths perspective), which provide more practice-focused approaches to understanding social work.
As you have probably learned in social work theory, systems theorists view all parts of society as interconnected and focus on the relationships, boundaries, and flows of energy between these systems and subsystems (Schriver, 2011). [28] Conflict theorists are interested in power dynamics and how society's organization creates rewards and punishments. Symbolic interactionists focus on how meaning is created and negotiated through meaningful (i.e., symbolic) interactions. Finally, social exchange theorists examine how human beings base their behavior on a rational calculation of rewards and costs.
Just as researchers might examine the same topic from different levels of inquiry or paradigms, they could also investigate the same topic from different theoretical perspectives. In this case, their research questions could be the same, but the way they conceptualize their observations will be largely shaped by theory. Table 6.2 summarizes the main points of focus for each major theory and outlines how a researcher might study the same topic from each of the three perspectives.
| Theory | Focuses on | A study of substance abuse might examine |
| Systems | Interrelations between parts of society; how parts work together | How a lack of employment opportunities might impact rates of substance abuse in an area |
| Conflict | Who wins and who loses based on the way that society is organized | How the War on Drugs has impacted minority communities |
| Symbolic Interactionism | How meaning is created and negotiated though interactions | How people’s self-definitions as “addicts” helps or hurts their ability to remain sober |
| Social Exchange | How behavior is influenced by costs and rewards | Whether increased distribution of anti-overdose medications makes overdose more or less likely |
Within each area of specialization in social work, there are many other theories that aim to explain more specific types of interactions. For example, the study of sexual harassment includes different theories that posit varying explanations of why harassment occurs. One theory, first developed by criminologists, is called routine activities theory. It posits that sexual harassment is most likely to occur when a workplace lacks unified groups and when potentially vulnerable targets and motivated offenders are both present (DeCoster, Estes, & Mueller, 1999). [29] Other theories of sexual harassment, called relational theories, suggest that a person’s relationships, such as their marriages or friendships, are the key to understanding why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs and how people will respond to it when it does occur (Morgan, 1999). [30] Relational theories focus on the power that different social relationships provide (e.g., married people who have supportive partners at home might be more likely than those who lack support at home to report sexual harassment when it occurs). Finally, feminist theories of sexual harassment take a different stance. These theories posit that the organizational structure of our gender system, where those who are the most masculine have the most power, best explains why and how workplace sexual harassment occurs (MacKinnon, 1979). [31] As you might imagine, the theory a researcher applies to examine the topic of sexual harassment will shape the questions the researcher asks. It will also shape the explanations the researcher provides for why harassment occurs.
For an undergraduate student beginning their study of a new topic, it may be intimidating to learn that there are so many theories beyond what you’ve learned in your theory classes. What’s worse is that there is no central database of different theories on your topic. However, as you review the literature in your topic area, you will learn more about the theories that scientists have created to explain how your topic works in the real world. In addition to peer-reviewed journal articles, books are another valuable source to learn theories related to your topic. Books often contain works of theoretical and philosophical importance that are beyond the scope of an academic journal.
Paradigm and theory in social work
Theories, paradigms, levels of analysis, and the order in which one proceeds in the research process influence the questions we ask about the social world, how we ask them, and even what we may to find. A micro-level study of gangs will look much different than a macro-level study of gangs. In some cases, you could apply multiple levels of analysis to your investigation, but doing so isn’t always practical or feasible. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the different levels of analysis and be aware of which level you are employing. One’s theoretical perspective will also shape a study. In particular, the chosen theory will not only shape the way a question is asked but also which topic will be investigated in the first place. Further, commitment to one theory over another may limit the kinds of questions you pose and could result in missing other possible explanations.
Social science is not fundamentally biased due to the limitations of paradigms and theories, but at the same time, it can never be completely value-free. Social constructionists and postmodernists might point out that bias is always a part of research to at least some degree. Our job as researchers is to recognize and address our biases as part of the research process, if an imperfect part. We frame and conduct our work by using our own theories, levels of analysis, temporal processes, and paradigms. Understanding those frames and approaches is crucial not only for successfully embarking upon and completing any research-based investigation, but also for responsibly reading and understanding others’ work.
Key Takeaways
- Paradigms shape our everyday view of the world.
- Researchers use theory to help frame their research questions and to help them make sense of the answers to those questions.
- Applying the four key theories of social work is a good start, but you will likely have to look for more specific theories about your topic.
Glossary
Critical paradigm- a paradigm in social science research focused on power, inequality, and social change
Paradigm- a way of viewing the world and a framework from which to understand the human experience
Positivism- a paradigm guided by the principles of objectivity, "knowability," and deductive logic
Postmodernism- a paradigm focused on the historical and contextual embeddedness of scientific knowledge; characterized by skepticism towards certainty and grand explanations in social science
Social constructionism- a paradigm based on the idea that social context and interaction frame our realities
Theory- “a systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life” (Rubin & Babbie, 2017, p. 615)
A common alternative to simple random sampling in which the population is divided into different subgroups or “strata” (usually based on demographic characteristics) and then a random sample is taken from each “stratum.”
