introduction for sociology research paper

How To Write A Sociology Research Paper Outline: Easy Guide With Template

Table of contents

• 1 What Is A Sociology Research Paper?
• 2 Sociology Paper Format
• 3 Structure of the Sociology Paper
• 4 Possible Sociology Paper Topics
• 5.1 Sociology Research Paper Outline Example
• 6 Sociology Research Paper Example

Writing a sociology research paper is mandatory in many universities and school classes, where students must properly present a relevant topic chosen with supporting evidence, exhaustive research, and new ways of understanding or explaining some author’s ideas. This type of paper is very common among political science majors and classes but can be assigned to almost every subject.

Learn about the key elements of a sociological paper and how to write an excellent piece.

Sociology papers require a certain structure and format to introduce the topic and key points of the research according to academic requirements. For those students struggling with this type of assignment, the following article will share some light on how to write a sociology research paper and create a sociology research paper outline, among other crucial points that must be addressed to design and write an outstanding piece.

With useful data about this common research paper, including topic ideas and a detailed outline, this guide will come in handy for all students and writers in need of writing an academic-worthy sociology paper.

What Is A Sociology Research Paper?

A sociology research paper is a specially written composition that showcases the writer’s knowledge on one or more sociology topics. Writing in sociology requires a certain level of knowledge and skills, such as critical thinking and cohesive writing, to be worthy of great academic recognition.

Furthermore, writing sociology papers have to follow a research paper type of structure to ensure the hypothesis and the rest of the ideas introduced in the research can be properly read and understood by teachers, peers, and readers in general.

Sociology research papers are commonly written following the format used in reports and are based on interviews, data, and text analysis. Writing a sociology paper requires students to perform unique research on a relevant topic (including the appropriate bibliography and different sources used such as books, websites, scientific journals, etc.), test a question or hypothesis that the paper will try to prove or deny, compare different sociologist’s points of view and how/why they state certain sayings and data, among other critical points.

A research paper in sociology also needs to apply the topic of current events, at least in some parts of the piece, in which writers must apply the theory to today’s scenarios. In addition to this, sociology research requires students to perform some kind of field research such as interviews, observational and participant research, and others.

Sociology research papers require a deep understanding of the subject and the ability to gather information from multiple sources. Therefore, many students seek help from experienced online essay writers to guide them through the research process and craft a compelling paper. With the help of a professional essay writer, students can craft a comprehensive sociology research paper outline to ensure they cover all the relevant points.

After explaining what this type of paper consists of, it is time to dive into one of the most searched questions online, “What format are sociology papers written in?”. Below you can find a detailed paragraph with all the information necessary.

Sociology Paper Format

A sociology paper format follows some standard requirements that can be seen on other types of papers as well. The format commonly used in college and other academic institutions consists of an appropriate citation style, which many professors ask for in the traditional APA format, but others can also require students to write in ASA style (very similar to APA, and the main difference is how you write the author’s name).

The citation is one of the major parts of any sociological research paper that needs to be understood perfectly and used according to the rules established by it. Failing to present a cohesive and correct citing format is very likely to cause the failure of the assignment.

As for the visual part of the paper, a neat and professional font is called for, and generally, the standard sociology paper outline is written in Times New Roman font (12pt and double spaced) with at least 1 inch of margin on both sides. If your professor did not specify which sociology format to use, it is safe to say that this one will be just fine for your delivery.

Sociology papers have a specific structure, just like other research pieces, which consist of an introduction , a body with respective paragraphs for each new idea, and a research conclusion . In the point below, you can find a detailed sociology research paper outline to help you write your statement as smoothly and professionally as possible.

Structure of the Sociology Paper

A traditional sociology research paper outline is based on a few key points that help present and develop the information and the writer’s skills properly. Below is a sociology research paper outline to start designing your project according to the standard requirements.

• Introduction. In this first part, you should state the question or problem to be solved during the article. Including a hypothesis and supporting the claim relevant to the chosen field is recommended.
• Literature review. Including the literature review is essential to a sociology research paper outline to present the authors and information used.
• Methodology. A traditional outline for a sociology research paper includes the methodology used, in which writers should explain how they approach their research and the methods used. It gives credibility to their work and makes it more professional.
• Outcomes & findings. Sociological research papers must include, after the methodology, the outcomes and findings to provide readers with a glimpse of what your paper resulted in. Graphics and tables are highly encouraged to use on this part.
• Discussion. The discussion part of a sociological paper serves as an overall review of the research, how difficult it was, and what can be improved.
• Conclusion. Finally, to close your sociology research paper outline, briefly mention the results obtained and do the last paragraph with the writer’s final words on the topic.
• Bibliography. The bibliography should be the last page (or pages) included in the article but in different sheets than the paper (this means, if you finished your article in the middle of the page, the bibliography should start on a new separate one), in which sources must be cited according to the style chosen (APA, ASA, etc.).

This sociology research paper outline serves as a great guide for those who want to properly present a sociological piece worthy of academic recognition. Furthermore, to achieve a good grade, it is essential to choose a great topic.

Below you can find some sociology paper topics to help you decide how to begin writing yours.

Possible Sociology Paper Topics

To present a quality piece, choosing a relevant topic inside the sociological field is essential. Here you can find unique sociology research paper topics that will make a great presentation.

• Relationship Between Race and Class
• How Ethnicity Affects Education
• How Women Are Presented By The Media
• Sexuality And Television
• Youth And Technology: A Revision To Social Media
• Technology vs. Food: Who Comes First?
• How The Cinema Encourages Unreachable Standards
• Adolescence And Sex
• How Men And Women Are Treated Different In The Workplace
• Anti-vaccination: A Civil Right Or Violation?

These sociology paper topics will serve as a starting point where students can conduct their own research and find their desired approach. Furthermore, these topics can be studied in various decades, which adds more value and data to the paper.

Writing a Great Sociology Research Paper Outline

If you’re searching for how to write a sociology research paper, this part will come in handy. A good sociology research paper must properly introduce the topic chosen while presenting supporting evidence, the methodology used, and the sources investigated, and to reach this level of academic excellence, the following information will provide a great starting point.

Three main sociology research paper outlines serve similar roles but differ in a few things. The traditional outline utilizes Roman numerals to itemize sections and formats the sub-headings with capital letters, later using Arabic numerals for the next layer. This one is great for those who already have an idea of what they’ll write about.

The second sample is the post-draft outline, where writers mix their innovative ideas and the actual paper’s outline. This second type of draft is ideal for those with a few semi-assembled ideas that need to be developed around the paper’s main idea. Naturally, a student will end up finding their way through the research and structuring the piece smoothly while writing it.

Lastly, the third type of outline is referred to as conceptual outline and serves as a visual representation of the text written. Similar to a conceptual map, this outline used big rectangles that include the key topics or headings of the paper, as well as circles that represent the sources used to support those headings. This one is perfect for those who need to visually see their paper assembled, and it can also be used to see which ideas need further development or supporting evidence.

Furthermore, to write a great sociology paper, the following tips will be of great help.

• Introduction. An eye-catching introduction calls for an unknown or relevant fact that captivates the reader’s attention. Apart from conducting excellent research, students worthy of the highest academic score are those able to present the information properly and in a way that the audience will be interested in reading.
• Body. The paragraphs presented must be written attractively, to make readers want to know more. It is important to explain theories and add supporting evidence to back up your sayings and ideas; empirical data is highly recommended to be added to give the research paper more depth and physical recognition. A great method is to start a paragraph presenting an idea or theory, develop the paragraph with supporting evidence and close it with findings or results. This way, readers can easily understand the idea and comprehend what you want to portray.
• Conclusion. For the conclusion, it is highly important, to sum up the key points presented in the sociology research paper, and after doing so, professors always recommend adding further readings or suggested bibliography to help readers who are interested in continuing their education on the topic just read.

No matter the method you choose to plan out your sociological papers, you’ll need to cover a few bases of how to assemble your final draft. If you’re stuck on where to begin your work, you can always buy sociology research paper from professional writers. Many students go to the pros to shore up their grades and make time when deadlines become overwhelming. If you do it independently, double-check your assignment’s requirements and fit them into the following sections.

Sociology Research Paper Outline Example

The following sociology research paper outline example will serve as an excellent guide and template which students can customize to fit their topics and key points. The outline above follows the topic “How Women Are Presented By The Media”.

Sociology Research Paper Example

PapersOwl website is an excellent resource if you’re looking for more detailed examples of sociology research papers. We provide a wide range of sample research papers that can serve as a guide and template for your own work.

“Changing Demographics Customer Service to Millennials” Example

Students who structure their sociological papers before conducting in-depth research are more likely to succeed. This happens because it is easier and more efficient to research specific key points rather than diving into the topic without knowing how to approach it or presenting the information, data, statistics, and others found.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 4. The Introduction
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The introduction leads the reader from a general subject area to a particular topic of inquiry. It establishes the scope, context, and significance of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal, and outlining the remaining structure and organization of the paper.

Key Elements of the Research Proposal. Prepared under the direction of the Superintendent and by the 2010 Curriculum Design and Writing Team. Baltimore County Public Schools.

Importance of a Good Introduction

Think of the introduction as a mental road map that must answer for the reader these four questions:

• What was I studying?
• Why was this topic important to investigate?
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study?
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding?

According to Reyes, there are three overarching goals of a good introduction: 1) ensure that you summarize prior studies about the topic in a manner that lays a foundation for understanding the research problem; 2) explain how your study specifically addresses gaps in the literature, insufficient consideration of the topic, or other deficiency in the literature; and, 3) note the broader theoretical, empirical, and/or policy contributions and implications of your research.

A well-written introduction is important because, quite simply, you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. The opening paragraphs of your paper will provide your readers with their initial impressions about the logic of your argument, your writing style, the overall quality of your research, and, ultimately, the validity of your findings and conclusions. A vague, disorganized, or error-filled introduction will create a negative impression, whereas, a concise, engaging, and well-written introduction will lead your readers to think highly of your analytical skills, your writing style, and your research approach. All introductions should conclude with a brief paragraph that describes the organization of the rest of the paper.

Hirano, Eliana. “Research Article Introductions in English for Specific Purposes: A Comparison between Brazilian, Portuguese, and English.” English for Specific Purposes 28 (October 2009): 240-250; Samraj, B. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002): 1–17; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide. Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70; Reyes, Victoria. Demystifying the Journal Article. Inside Higher Education.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Structure and Approach

The introduction is the broad beginning of the paper that answers three important questions for the reader:

• What is this?
• Why should I read it?
• What do you want me to think about / consider doing / react to?

Think of the structure of the introduction as an inverted triangle of information that lays a foundation for understanding the research problem. Organize the information so as to present the more general aspects of the topic early in the introduction, then narrow your analysis to more specific topical information that provides context, finally arriving at your research problem and the rationale for studying it [often written as a series of key questions to be addressed or framed as a hypothesis or set of assumptions to be tested] and, whenever possible, a description of the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

These are general phases associated with writing an introduction: 1.  Establish an area to research by:

• Highlighting the importance of the topic, and/or
• Making general statements about the topic, and/or
• Presenting an overview on current research on the subject.

2.  Identify a research niche by:

• Opposing an existing assumption, and/or
• Revealing a gap in existing research, and/or
• Formulating a research question or problem, and/or
• Continuing a disciplinary tradition.

3.  Place your research within the research niche by:

• Stating the intent of your study,
• Outlining the key characteristics of your study,
• Describing important results, and
• Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

NOTE:   It is often useful to review the introduction late in the writing process. This is appropriate because outcomes are unknown until you've completed the study. After you complete writing the body of the paper, go back and review introductory descriptions of the structure of the paper, the method of data gathering, the reporting and analysis of results, and the conclusion. Reviewing and, if necessary, rewriting the introduction ensures that it correctly matches the overall structure of your final paper.

II.  Delimitations of the Study

Delimitations refer to those characteristics that limit the scope and define the conceptual boundaries of your research . This is determined by the conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions you make about how to investigate the research problem. In other words, not only should you tell the reader what it is you are studying and why, but you must also acknowledge why you rejected alternative approaches that could have been used to examine the topic.

Obviously, the first limiting step was the choice of research problem itself. However, implicit are other, related problems that could have been chosen but were rejected. These should be noted in the conclusion of your introduction. For example, a delimitating statement could read, "Although many factors can be understood to impact the likelihood young people will vote, this study will focus on socioeconomic factors related to the need to work full-time while in school." The point is not to document every possible delimiting factor, but to highlight why previously researched issues related to the topic were not addressed.

Examples of delimitating choices would be:

• The key aims and objectives of your study,
• The research questions that you address,
• The variables of interest [i.e., the various factors and features of the phenomenon being studied],
• The method(s) of investigation,
• The time period your study covers, and
• Any relevant alternative theoretical frameworks that could have been adopted.

Review each of these decisions. Not only do you clearly establish what you intend to accomplish in your research, but you should also include a declaration of what the study does not intend to cover. In the latter case, your exclusionary decisions should be based upon criteria understood as, "not interesting"; "not directly relevant"; “too problematic because..."; "not feasible," and the like. Make this reasoning explicit!

NOTE:   Delimitations refer to the initial choices made about the broader, overall design of your study and should not be confused with documenting the limitations of your study discovered after the research has been completed.

ANOTHER NOTE: Do not view delimitating statements as admitting to an inherent failing or shortcoming in your research. They are an accepted element of academic writing intended to keep the reader focused on the research problem by explicitly defining the conceptual boundaries and scope of your study. It addresses any critical questions in the reader's mind of, "Why the hell didn't the author examine this?"

III.  The Narrative Flow

Issues to keep in mind that will help the narrative flow in your introduction :

• Your introduction should clearly identify the subject area of interest . A simple strategy to follow is to use key words from your title in the first few sentences of the introduction. This will help focus the introduction on the topic at the appropriate level and ensures that you get to the subject matter quickly without losing focus, or discussing information that is too general.
• Establish context by providing a brief and balanced review of the pertinent published literature that is available on the subject. The key is to summarize for the reader what is known about the specific research problem before you did your analysis. This part of your introduction should not represent a comprehensive literature review--that comes next. It consists of a general review of the important, foundational research literature [with citations] that establishes a foundation for understanding key elements of the research problem. See the drop-down menu under this tab for " Background Information " regarding types of contexts.
• Clearly state the hypothesis that you investigated . When you are first learning to write in this format it is okay, and actually preferable, to use a past statement like, "The purpose of this study was to...." or "We investigated three possible mechanisms to explain the...."
• Why did you choose this kind of research study or design? Provide a clear statement of the rationale for your approach to the problem studied. This will usually follow your statement of purpose in the last paragraph of the introduction.

IV.  Engaging the Reader

A research problem in the social sciences can come across as dry and uninteresting to anyone unfamiliar with the topic . Therefore, one of the goals of your introduction is to make readers want to read your paper. Here are several strategies you can use to grab the reader's attention:

• Open with a compelling story . Almost all research problems in the social sciences, no matter how obscure or esoteric , are really about the lives of people. Telling a story that humanizes an issue can help illuminate the significance of the problem and help the reader empathize with those affected by the condition being studied.
• Include a strong quotation or a vivid, perhaps unexpected, anecdote . During your review of the literature, make note of any quotes or anecdotes that grab your attention because they can used in your introduction to highlight the research problem in a captivating way.
• Pose a provocative or thought-provoking question . Your research problem should be framed by a set of questions to be addressed or hypotheses to be tested. However, a provocative question can be presented in the beginning of your introduction that challenges an existing assumption or compels the reader to consider an alternative viewpoint that helps establish the significance of your study. 
• Describe a puzzling scenario or incongruity . This involves highlighting an interesting quandary concerning the research problem or describing contradictory findings from prior studies about a topic. Posing what is essentially an unresolved intellectual riddle about the problem can engage the reader's interest in the study.
• Cite a stirring example or case study that illustrates why the research problem is important . Draw upon the findings of others to demonstrate the significance of the problem and to describe how your study builds upon or offers alternatives ways of investigating this prior research.

NOTE:   It is important that you choose only one of the suggested strategies for engaging your readers. This avoids giving an impression that your paper is more flash than substance and does not distract from the substance of your study.

Freedman, Leora  and Jerry Plotnick. Introductions and Conclusions. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Introduction. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Introductions. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Introductions, Body Paragraphs, and Conclusions for an Argument Paper. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide . Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70; Resources for Writers: Introduction Strategies. Program in Writing and Humanistic Studies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Sharpling, Gerald. Writing an Introduction. Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick; Samraj, B. “Introductions in Research Articles: Variations Across Disciplines.” English for Specific Purposes 21 (2002): 1–17; Swales, John and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks . 2nd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004 ; Writing Your Introduction. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University.

Writing Tip

Avoid the "Dictionary" Introduction

Giving the dictionary definition of words related to the research problem may appear appropriate because it is important to define specific terminology that readers may be unfamiliar with. However, anyone can look a word up in the dictionary and a general dictionary is not a particularly authoritative source because it doesn't take into account the context of your topic and doesn't offer particularly detailed information. Also, placed in the context of a particular discipline, a term or concept may have a different meaning than what is found in a general dictionary. If you feel that you must seek out an authoritative definition, use a subject specific dictionary or encyclopedia [e.g., if you are a sociology student, search for dictionaries of sociology]. A good database for obtaining definitive definitions of concepts or terms is Credo Reference .

Saba, Robert. The College Research Paper. Florida International University; Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.

Another Writing Tip

When Do I Begin?

A common question asked at the start of any paper is, "Where should I begin?" An equally important question to ask yourself is, "When do I begin?" Research problems in the social sciences rarely rest in isolation from history. Therefore, it is important to lay a foundation for understanding the historical context underpinning the research problem. However, this information should be brief and succinct and begin at a point in time that illustrates the study's overall importance. For example, a study that investigates coffee cultivation and export in West Africa as a key stimulus for local economic growth needs to describe the beginning of exporting coffee in the region and establishing why economic growth is important. You do not need to give a long historical explanation about coffee exports in Africa. If a research problem requires a substantial exploration of the historical context, do this in the literature review section. In your introduction, make note of this as part of the "roadmap" [see below] that you use to describe the organization of your paper.

Introductions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; “Writing Introductions.” In Good Essay Writing: A Social Sciences Guide . Peter Redman. 4th edition. (London: Sage, 2011), pp. 63-70.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Always End with a Roadmap

The final paragraph or sentences of your introduction should forecast your main arguments and conclusions and provide a brief description of the rest of the paper [the "roadmap"] that let's the reader know where you are going and what to expect. A roadmap is important because it helps the reader place the research problem within the context of their own perspectives about the topic. In addition, concluding your introduction with an explicit roadmap tells the reader that you have a clear understanding of the structural purpose of your paper. In this way, the roadmap acts as a type of promise to yourself and to your readers that you will follow a consistent and coherent approach to addressing the topic of inquiry. Refer to it often to help keep your writing focused and organized.

Cassuto, Leonard. “On the Dissertation: How to Write the Introduction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education , May 28, 2018; Radich, Michael. A Student's Guide to Writing in East Asian Studies . (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Writing n. d.), pp. 35-37.

• << Previous: Executive Summary
• Next: The C.A.R.S. Model >>
• Last Updated: May 30, 2024 9:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• Faculty & Staff
• Major in Sociology
• Minor in Sociology
• Sociology Links
• Department Awards
• Internships
• Alpha Kappa Delta
• Commitment to Anti-Racism

How to Write Sociology Papers

Writing sociology papers.

Writing is one of the most difficult and most rewarding of all scholarly activities. Few of us, students or professors, find it easy to do. The pain of writing comes largely as a result of bad writing habits. No one can write a good paper in one draft on the night before the paper is due. The following steps will not guarantee a good paper, but they will eliminate the most common problems encountered in bad papers.

1. Select a topic early. Start thinking about topics as soon as the paper is assigned and get approval of your topic choice from the professor before starting the research on the paper. When choosing a topic, think critically. Remember that writing a good sociology paper starts with asking a good sociological question.

2. Give yourself adequate time to do the research. You will need time to think through the things you read or to explore the data you analyze. Also, things will go wrong and you will need time to recover. The one book or article which will help make your paper the best one you've ever done will be unavailable in the library and you have to wait for it to be recalled or to be found through interlibrary loan. Or perhaps the computer will crash and destroy a whole afternoon's work. These things happen to all writers. Allow enough time to finish your paper even if such things happen.

3. Work from an outline. Making an outline breaks the task down into smaller bits which do not seem as daunting. This allows you to keep an image of the whole in mind even while you work on the parts. You can show the outline to your professor and get advice while you are writing a paper rather than after you turn it in for a final grade.

4. Stick to the point. Each paper should contain one key idea which you can state in a sentence or paragraph. The paper will provide the argument and evidence to support that point. Papers should be compact with a strong thesis and a clear line of argument. Avoid digressions and padding.

5. Make more than one draft. First drafts are plagued with confusion, bad writing, omissions, and other errors. So are second drafts, but not to the same extent. Get someone else to read it. Even your roommate who has never had a sociology course may be able to point out unclear parts or mistakes you have missed. The best papers have been rewritten, in part or in whole, several times. Few first draft papers will receive high grades.

6. Proofread the final copy, correcting any typographical errors. A sloppily written, uncorrected paper sends a message that the writer does not care about his or her work. If the writer does not care about the paper, why should the reader?

Such rules may seem demanding and constricting, but they provide the liberation of self discipline. By choosing a topic, doing the research, and writing the paper you take control over a vital part of your own education. What you learn in the process, if you do it conscientiously, is far greater that what shows up in the paper or what is reflected in the grade.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH PAPERS

Some papers have an empirical content that needs to be handled differently than a library research paper. Empirical papers report some original research. It may be based on participant observation, on secondary analysis of social surveys, or some other source. The outline below presents a general form that most articles published in sociology journals follow. You should get specific instructions from professors who assign empirical research papers.

1. Introduction and statement of the research question.

2. Review of previous research and theory.

3. Description of data collection including sample characteristics and the reliability and validity of techniques employed.

4. Presentation of the results of data analysis including explicit reference to the implications the data have for the research question.

5. Conclusion which ties the loose ends of the analysis back to the research question.

6. End notes (if any).

7. References cited in the paper.

Tables and displays of quantitative information should follow the rules set down by Tufte in the work listed below.

Tufte, Edward. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. (lib QA 90 T93 1983)

SO 101-03: Introduction to Sociology

• Getting Started
• Finding Books
• Finding Articles
• Finding Websites
• Citing Sources
• Writing & Research Tips
• Avoid Plagiarism

Tips on Writing Your Paper

If you need additional help with selecting a topic, searching, or writing your paper, please review the guide on the research process that takes you step-by-step through the process.

• Research Process Guide
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Literature Review

Research Tips & Tutorials

Research Guides 

• Colorado State University Libraries
• SUNY Binghamton Libraries
• Monmouth University Library
• Georgetown University Library
• Developing a Research Plan
• The Research Process
• Doing Background Research
• Using Google & Wikipedia - Pros & Cons
• Choosing & Using Keywords
• Evaluating Information
• How to Identify Misinformation
• Overview - Basics of College Level Research
• Creating a Research Plan
• Your Research Project - First Steps
• Choosing a Topic
• Developing a Research Question

How to Choose a Research Topic

Choose a topic you’re interested in

Background reading can help you choose and limit the scope of your topic. Do background research using reference materials like dictionaries and encyclopedias. 

• Gather key facts, dates, events and names
• Get a historical overview
• Define key terms

Stay within assignment guidelines

Refine your topic

• Narrow your topic if your topic is too broad. Otherwise, you will find too much information and not be able to focus. Narrow by time period, location, specific demographic, or a particular aspect of the subject.
• Broaden your topic if there is not enough information or research available or if it’s too specific.
• If too specific, generalize your subject
• If too new for much to have been written, consider changing topics
• Use a variety of source material - different databases, books, government reports
• Change your search terms (keywords) - you may be using terms that are not subject-specific or are too specific

Think of the who, what, where, when and why questions

• WHY did you choose the topic?  What interests you about it?  Do you have an opinion about the issues involved?
• WHO are the information providers on this topic?  Who might publish information about it?  Who is affected by the topic?  Do you know of organizations or institutions affiliated with the topic?
• WHAT are the major questions for this topic?  Is there a debate about the topic?  Are there a range of issues and viewpoints to consider?
• WHERE is your topic important: at the local, national or international level?  Are there specific places affected by the topic?
• WHEN is/was your topic important?  Is it a current event or an historical issue?  Do you want to compare your topic by time periods?

The MU Writing Center

At MU Writing Services, you'll find a dedicated team of undergraduates, graduate students, professionals and faculty who are eager to offer writing assistance to the Monmouth community. Our motto is: we help produce strong writers, not just better papers! We offer writing instruction one a one-to-one basis to students at every level, of every major, and at every stage of the writing process. Writing Services appointments are 30 minutes long and run continually throughout the day.

• Monday through Thursday:  the first appointment is at 9:30 a.m. and the last appointment begins at 8:15 p.m.
• Friday:  the first appointment is at 9:30 a.m. and the last appointment begins at 4:15 p.m.
• Sunday : the first appointment is at 5:15 p.m. and the last appointment begins at 8:15 p.m

The Writing Services office is located in the lower level of the Stafford Student Center, and is open weekdays from 8:45 to 5 p.m.  You may contact us via email at [email protected] or by calling 732-571-7542. Please make an appointment with us and find out what we are all about! 

• Information & Director's Message
• Make an Appointment Make an appointment for writing assistance, submit your paper or get guidance on research and citation formatting.
• Grammar Bytes View brief presentations on various grammar topics.
• Resources for Writers PDF quick guides on grammar, citation style, and more.
• MU Writing Assistants Meet your writing assistants!

Saving Your Work

There are several ways you can save your research work as you move through your project:

Create an account within a database (JSTOR, Academic Search Complete, Credo, etc.) and save articles to folders.

Send individual articles to yourself , print them , save to a thumb drive  or upload to Google Drive using the database widgets provided. These will look slightly different depending on the database, and are typically found when you open up individual articles. You can also download a PDF if it's available. Here's what the widgets look like in the Ebsco databases: 

Create an account in Zotero or NoodleTools . Not only will you be able to save articles here, but you can keep lists of search terms, book titles and other resources types, and there are templates that help you create your paper and/or bibliography. There are tools to create documents for all major styles/formats (MLA, APA, Chicago Style, etc.).

Create an account within MLA Style Center  or Academic Writer (APA Style) . There are tutorials and templates to help you create your paper and/or bibliography using MLA/APA style. Use Chicago Style Online for Chicago Style format.

• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Avoid Plagiarism >>
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 10:26 AM
• URL: https://guides.monmouth.edu/IntroSoc

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (with Examples)

The research paper introduction section, along with the Title and Abstract, can be considered the face of any research paper. The following article is intended to guide you in organizing and writing the research paper introduction for a quality academic article or dissertation.

The research paper introduction aims to present the topic to the reader. A study will only be accepted for publishing if you can ascertain that the available literature cannot answer your research question. So it is important to ensure that you have read important studies on that particular topic, especially those within the last five to ten years, and that they are properly referenced in this section. 1 What should be included in the research paper introduction is decided by what you want to tell readers about the reason behind the research and how you plan to fill the knowledge gap. The best research paper introduction provides a systemic review of existing work and demonstrates additional work that needs to be done. It needs to be brief, captivating, and well-referenced; a well-drafted research paper introduction will help the researcher win half the battle.

The introduction for a research paper is where you set up your topic and approach for the reader. It has several key goals:

• Present your research topic
• Capture reader interest
• Summarize existing research
• Position your own approach
• Define your specific research problem and problem statement
• Highlight the novelty and contributions of the study
• Give an overview of the paper’s structure

The research paper introduction can vary in size and structure depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or is a review paper. Some research paper introduction examples are only half a page while others are a few pages long. In many cases, the introduction will be shorter than all of the other sections of your paper; its length depends on the size of your paper as a whole.

• Break through writer’s block. Write your research paper introduction with Paperpal Copilot

Table of Contents

What is the introduction for a research paper, why is the introduction important in a research paper, craft a compelling introduction section with paperpal. try now, 1. introduce the research topic:, 2. determine a research niche:, 3. place your research within the research niche:, craft accurate research paper introductions with paperpal. start writing now, frequently asked questions on research paper introduction, key points to remember.

The introduction in a research paper is placed at the beginning to guide the reader from a broad subject area to the specific topic that your research addresses. They present the following information to the reader

• Scope: The topic covered in the research paper
• Context: Background of your topic
• Importance: Why your research matters in that particular area of research and the industry problem that can be targeted

The research paper introduction conveys a lot of information and can be considered an essential roadmap for the rest of your paper. A good introduction for a research paper is important for the following reasons:

• It stimulates your reader’s interest: A good introduction section can make your readers want to read your paper by capturing their interest. It informs the reader what they are going to learn and helps determine if the topic is of interest to them.
• It helps the reader understand the research background: Without a clear introduction, your readers may feel confused and even struggle when reading your paper. A good research paper introduction will prepare them for the in-depth research to come. It provides you the opportunity to engage with the readers and demonstrate your knowledge and authority on the specific topic.
• It explains why your research paper is worth reading: Your introduction can convey a lot of information to your readers. It introduces the topic, why the topic is important, and how you plan to proceed with your research.
• It helps guide the reader through the rest of the paper: The research paper introduction gives the reader a sense of the nature of the information that will support your arguments and the general organization of the paragraphs that will follow. It offers an overview of what to expect when reading the main body of your paper.

What are the parts of introduction in the research?

A good research paper introduction section should comprise three main elements: 2

• What is known: This sets the stage for your research. It informs the readers of what is known on the subject.
• What is lacking: This is aimed at justifying the reason for carrying out your research. This could involve investigating a new concept or method or building upon previous research.
• What you aim to do: This part briefly states the objectives of your research and its major contributions. Your detailed hypothesis will also form a part of this section.

How to write a research paper introduction?

The first step in writing the research paper introduction is to inform the reader what your topic is and why it’s interesting or important. This is generally accomplished with a strong opening statement. The second step involves establishing the kinds of research that have been done and ending with limitations or gaps in the research that you intend to address. Finally, the research paper introduction clarifies how your own research fits in and what problem it addresses. If your research involved testing hypotheses, these should be stated along with your research question. The hypothesis should be presented in the past tense since it will have been tested by the time you are writing the research paper introduction.

The following key points, with examples, can guide you when writing the research paper introduction section:

• Highlight the importance of the research field or topic
• Describe the background of the topic
• Present an overview of current research on the topic

Example: The inclusion of experiential and competency-based learning has benefitted electronics engineering education. Industry partnerships provide an excellent alternative for students wanting to engage in solving real-world challenges. Industry-academia participation has grown in recent years due to the need for skilled engineers with practical training and specialized expertise. However, from the educational perspective, many activities are needed to incorporate sustainable development goals into the university curricula and consolidate learning innovation in universities.

• Reveal a gap in existing research or oppose an existing assumption
• Formulate the research question

Example: There have been plausible efforts to integrate educational activities in higher education electronics engineering programs. However, very few studies have considered using educational research methods for performance evaluation of competency-based higher engineering education, with a focus on technical and or transversal skills. To remedy the current need for evaluating competencies in STEM fields and providing sustainable development goals in engineering education, in this study, a comparison was drawn between study groups without and with industry partners.

• State the purpose of your study
• Highlight the key characteristics of your study
• Describe important results
• Highlight the novelty of the study.
• Offer a brief overview of the structure of the paper.

Example: The study evaluates the main competency needed in the applied electronics course, which is a fundamental core subject for many electronics engineering undergraduate programs. We compared two groups, without and with an industrial partner, that offered real-world projects to solve during the semester. This comparison can help determine significant differences in both groups in terms of developing subject competency and achieving sustainable development goals.

Write a Research Paper Introduction in Minutes with Paperpal

Paperpal Copilot is a generative AI-powered academic writing assistant. It’s trained on millions of published scholarly articles and over 20 years of STM experience. Paperpal Copilot helps authors write better and faster with:

• Real-time writing suggestions
• In-depth checks for language and grammar correction
• Paraphrasing to add variety, ensure academic tone, and trim text to meet journal limits

With Paperpal Copilot, create a research paper introduction effortlessly. In this step-by-step guide, we’ll walk you through how Paperpal transforms your initial ideas into a polished and publication-ready introduction.

How to use Paperpal to write the Introduction section

Step 1: Sign up on Paperpal and click on the Copilot feature, under this choose Outlines > Research Article > Introduction

Step 2: Add your unstructured notes or initial draft, whether in English or another language, to Paperpal, which is to be used as the base for your content.

Step 3: Fill in the specifics, such as your field of study, brief description or details you want to include, which will help the AI generate the outline for your Introduction.

Step 4: Use this outline and sentence suggestions to develop your content, adding citations where needed and modifying it to align with your specific research focus.

Step 5: Turn to Paperpal’s granular language checks to refine your content, tailor it to reflect your personal writing style, and ensure it effectively conveys your message.

You can use the same process to develop each section of your article, and finally your research paper in half the time and without any of the stress.

The purpose of the research paper introduction is to introduce the reader to the problem definition, justify the need for the study, and describe the main theme of the study. The aim is to gain the reader’s attention by providing them with necessary background information and establishing the main purpose and direction of the research.

The length of the research paper introduction can vary across journals and disciplines. While there are no strict word limits for writing the research paper introduction, an ideal length would be one page, with a maximum of 400 words over 1-4 paragraphs. Generally, it is one of the shorter sections of the paper as the reader is assumed to have at least a reasonable knowledge about the topic. 2 For example, for a study evaluating the role of building design in ensuring fire safety, there is no need to discuss definitions and nature of fire in the introduction; you could start by commenting upon the existing practices for fire safety and how your study will add to the existing knowledge and practice.

When deciding what to include in the research paper introduction, the rest of the paper should also be considered. The aim is to introduce the reader smoothly to the topic and facilitate an easy read without much dependency on external sources. 3 Below is a list of elements you can include to prepare a research paper introduction outline and follow it when you are writing the research paper introduction. Topic introduction: This can include key definitions and a brief history of the topic. Research context and background: Offer the readers some general information and then narrow it down to specific aspects. Details of the research you conducted: A brief literature review can be included to support your arguments or line of thought. Rationale for the study: This establishes the relevance of your study and establishes its importance. Importance of your research: The main contributions are highlighted to help establish the novelty of your study Research hypothesis: Introduce your research question and propose an expected outcome. Organization of the paper: Include a short paragraph of 3-4 sentences that highlights your plan for the entire paper

Cite only works that are most relevant to your topic; as a general rule, you can include one to three. Note that readers want to see evidence of original thinking. So it is better to avoid using too many references as it does not leave much room for your personal standpoint to shine through. Citations in your research paper introduction support the key points, and the number of citations depend on the subject matter and the point discussed. If the research paper introduction is too long or overflowing with citations, it is better to cite a few review articles rather than the individual articles summarized in the review. A good point to remember when citing research papers in the introduction section is to include at least one-third of the references in the introduction.

The literature review plays a significant role in the research paper introduction section. A good literature review accomplishes the following: Introduces the topic – Establishes the study’s significance – Provides an overview of the relevant literature – Provides context for the study using literature – Identifies knowledge gaps However, remember to avoid making the following mistakes when writing a research paper introduction: Do not use studies from the literature review to aggressively support your research Avoid direct quoting Do not allow literature review to be the focus of this section. Instead, the literature review should only aid in setting a foundation for the manuscript.

Remember the following key points for writing a good research paper introduction: 4

• Avoid stuffing too much general information: Avoid including what an average reader would know and include only that information related to the problem being addressed in the research paper introduction. For example, when describing a comparative study of non-traditional methods for mechanical design optimization, information related to the traditional methods and differences between traditional and non-traditional methods would not be relevant. In this case, the introduction for the research paper should begin with the state-of-the-art non-traditional methods and methods to evaluate the efficiency of newly developed algorithms.
• Avoid packing too many references: Cite only the required works in your research paper introduction. The other works can be included in the discussion section to strengthen your findings.
• Avoid extensive criticism of previous studies: Avoid being overly critical of earlier studies while setting the rationale for your study. A better place for this would be the Discussion section, where you can highlight the advantages of your method.
• Avoid describing conclusions of the study: When writing a research paper introduction remember not to include the findings of your study. The aim is to let the readers know what question is being answered. The actual answer should only be given in the Results and Discussion section.

To summarize, the research paper introduction section should be brief yet informative. It should convince the reader the need to conduct the study and motivate him to read further. If you’re feeling stuck or unsure, choose trusted AI academic writing assistants like Paperpal to effortlessly craft your research paper introduction and other sections of your research article.

1. Jawaid, S. A., & Jawaid, M. (2019). How to write introduction and discussion. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S18.

2. Dewan, P., & Gupta, P. (2016). Writing the title, abstract and introduction: Looks matter!. Indian pediatrics, 53, 235-241.

3. Cetin, S., & Hackam, D. J. (2005). An approach to the writing of a scientific Manuscript1. Journal of Surgical Research, 128(2), 165-167.

4. Bavdekar, S. B. (2015). Writing introduction: Laying the foundations of a research paper. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63(7), 44-6.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• Scientific Writing Style Guides Explained
• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects
• 8 Most Effective Ways to Increase Motivation for Thesis Writing 

Practice vs. Practise: Learn the Difference

Academic paraphrasing: why paperpal’s rewrite should be your first choice , you may also like, mla works cited page: format, template & examples, how to write a high-quality conference paper, academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, phd qualifying exam: tips for success , ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., quillbot review: features, pricing, and free alternatives, what is an academic paper types and elements .

Quick links

• Directories
• Make a Gift

Tips for Writing Analytical Sociology Papers

This document is intended as an additional resource for undergraduate students taking sociology courses at UW. It is not intended to replace instructions from your professors and TAs. In all cases follow course-specific assignment instructions, and consult your TA or professor if you have questions.

• DO NOT PLAGIARIZE!  You must cite all sources you use—not only for direct quotations, but also for data, for facts that are not common knowledge, and very importantly for ideas that are not your own.  The UW policy on academic honest explains what plagiarism is, but also the consequences for students found to have committed it: http://www.washington.edu/uaa/advising/help/academichonesty.php
• It is generally expected that you state your argument (usually called a "thesis statement") in the first couple paragraphs (preferably the first). For theory application papers, this would include mention of the theory or argument you are applying and the case or empirical phenomenon to which you are applying it.
• Introductions and conclusions are important: they are the first and last impression given to your readers. A good introduction summarizes what the author does in the paper, and sets up ("motivates") the analytical problem or question. It is sometimes referred to as a "roadmap" for the paper.  Some writers find it effective to present an interesting or controversial statement or a quote in the introduction to gain the reader's attention. However, you should make certain that the quote or information is actually relevant to your thesis (your main argument)!
• A good conclusion almost always restates the argument and the evidence brought to bear.  This is not a place to introduce new evidence or make new claims.  However, you might address unresolved issues, why we should care about the topic of the paper, directions for future research, etc.
• Once you have completed the paper, you should revisit the introduction and conclusion to make sure that they "match" each other, and that they reflect the argument you make in the body of the paper.
• Most analytical sociology assignments should not rely upon personal anecdotes, experiences, or opinions as "data" to make an argument.  This varies by assignment—for example, some ask you to incorporate personal experiences and opinions.  If you are unsure, check with your instructor or TA.
• It is considered appropriate to use subject headers in longer analytical papers, as it helps guide the reader and organize your argument.
• Unless you are instructed otherwise, it can be helpful to write analytical papers in first person (using "I statements"): this helps you avoid passive constructions, wordiness, and confusion about voice (who is arguing what).  If your instructor prefers that you avoid the first person in your papers, you can write "This paper argues…" in order to distinguish your voice from that of the authors/theories/articles you discuss.
•   Instagram
•   LinkedIn
•   Twitter
•   Newsletter

How to Write a Sociological Essay: Explained with Examples

This article will discuss “How to Write a Sociological Essay” with insider pro tips and give you a map that is tried and tested. An essay writing is done in three phases: a) preparing for the essay, b) writing the essay, and c) editing the essay. We will take it step-by-step so that nothing is left behind because the devil, as well as good grades and presentation, lies in the details.

Writing is a skill that we learn throughout the courses of our lives. Learning how to write is a process that we begin as soon as we turn 4, and the learning process never stops. But the question is, “is all writing the same?”. The answer is NO. Do you remember your initial lessons of English when you were in school, and how the teacher taught various formats of writing such as formal, informal, essay, letter, and much more? Therefore, writing is never that simple. Different occasions demand different styles and commands over the writing style. Thus, the art of writing improves with time and experience. 

Those who belong to the world of academia know that writing is something that they cannot escape. No writing is the same when it comes to different disciplines of academia. Similarly, the discipline of sociology demands a particular style of formal academic writing. If you’re a new student of sociology, it can be an overwhelming subject, and writing assignments don’t make the course easier. Having some tips handy can surely help you write and articulate your thoughts better. 

[Let us take a running example throughout the article so that every point becomes crystal clear. Let us assume that the topic we have with us is to “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” .]

Phase I: Preparing for the Essay  

Step 1: make an outline.

So you have to write a sociological essay, which means that you already either received or have a topic in mind. The first thing for you to do is PLAN how you will attempt to write this essay. To plan, the best way is to make an outline. The topic you have, certainly string some thread in your mind. They can be instances you heard or read, some assumptions you hold, something you studied in the past, or based on your own experience, etc. Make a rough outline where you note down all the themes you would like to talk about in your essay. The easiest way to make an outline is to make bullet points. List all the thoughts and examples that you have in find and create a flow for your essay. Remember that this is only a rough outline so you can always make changes and reshuffle your points. 

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . Your outline will look something like this:

• Importance of food
• Definition of Diaspora 
• Relationship between food and culture
• Relationship between food and nation
• Relationship between food and media 
• Relationship between food and nostalgia 
• How food travels with people 
• Is food practices different for different sections of society, such as caste, class, gender ]

Step 2: Start Reading 

Once you have prepared an outline for your essay, the next step is to start your RESEARCH . You cannot write a sociological essay out of thin air. The essay needs to be thoroughly researched and based on facts. Sociology is the subject of social science that is based on facts and evidence. Therefore, start reading as soon as you have your outline determined. The more you read, the more factual data you will collect. But the question which now emerges is “what to read” . You cannot do a basic Google search to write an academic essay. Your research has to be narrow and concept-based. For writing a sociological essay, make sure that the sources from where you read are academically acclaimed and accepted.  

Some of the websites that you can use for academic research are: 

• Google Scholar
• Shodhganga 

[Explanation through example, assumed topic: “Explore Culinary Discourse among the Indian Diasporic Communities” . 

For best search, search for your articles by typing “Food+Diaspora”, “Food+Nostalgia”, adding a plus sign (+) improves the search result.]

Step 3: Make Notes 

This is a step that a lot of people miss when they are preparing to write their essays. It is important to read, but how you read is also a very vital part. When you are reading from multiple sources then all that you read becomes a big jumble of information in your mind. It is not possible to remember who said what at all times. Therefore, what you need to do while reading is to maintain an ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY . Whenever you’re reading for writing an academic essay then have a notebook handy, or if you prefer electronic notes then prepare a Word Document, Google Docs, Notes, or any tool of your choice to make notes. 

As you begin reading, note down the title of the article, its author, and the year of publication. As you read, keep writing down all the significant points that you find. You can either copy whole sentences or make shorthand notes, whatever suits you best. Once you’ve read the article and made your notes, write a summary of what you just read in 8 to 10 lines. Also, write keywords, these are the words that are most used in the article and reflect its essence. Having keywords and a summary makes it easier for you to revisit the article. A sociological essay needs a good amount of research, which means that you have to read plenty, thus maintaining an annotated bibliography helps you in the greater picture.  

Annotate and divide your notes based on the outline you made. Having organized notes will help you directly apply the concepts where they are needed rather than you going and searching for them again.] 

Phase II: Write a Sociological Essay

A basic essay includes a title, an introduction, the main body, and a conclusion. A sociological essay is not that different as far as the body of contents goes, but it does include some additional categories. When you write a sociological essay, it should have the following contents and chronology: 

• Subtitle (optional)
• Introduction

Conclusion 

• References/ Bibliography 

Now let us get into the details which go into the writing of a sociological essay.  

Step 4: Writing a Title, Subtitle, Abstract, and Keywords 

The title of any document is the first thing that a reader comes across. Therefore, the title should be provocative, specific, and the most well-thought part of any essay. Your title should reflect what your essay will discuss further. There has to be a sync between the title and the rest of your content. The title should be the biggest font size you use in your essay. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: A title preferably should not exceed 5 to 7 words.  

This is an optional component of any essay. If you think that your title cannot justify the rest of the contents of your essay, then you opt for a subtitle. The subtitle is the secondary part of the title which is used to further elucidate the title. A subtitle should be smaller in font than the Title but bigger than the rest of the essay body.  

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Make the font color of your subtitle Gray instead of Black for it to stand out. 

The abstract is a 6 to 10 line description of what you will talk about in your essay. An abstract is a very substantial component of a sociological essay. Most of the essays written in academia exceed the word limit of 2000 words. Therefore, a writer, i.e., you, provides the reader with a short abstract at the beginning of your essay so that they can know what you are going to discuss. From the point of view of the reader, a good abstract can save time and help determine if the piece is worth reading or not. Thus, make sure to make your abstract as reflective to your essay as possible using the least amount of words.  

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: If you are not sure about your abstract at first, it is always great to write the abstract in the end after you are done with your essay. 

Your abstract should highlight all the points that you will further discuss. Therefore your abstract should mention how diasporic communities are formed and how they are not homogeneous communities. There are differences within this large population. In your essay, you will talk in detail about all the various aspects that affect food and diasporic relationships. ]

Keywords are an extension of your abstract. Whereas in your abstract you will use a paragraph to tell the reader what to expect ahead, by stating keywords, you point out the essence of your essay by using only individual words. These words are mostly concepts of social sciences. At first, glance, looking at your keywords, the reader should get informed about all the concepts and themes you will explain in detail later. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Bold your Keywords so that they get highlighted.

Your keywords could be: Food, Diaspora, Migration, and so on. Build on these as you continue to write your essay.]   

Step 5: Writing the Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusion 

Introduction 

Your introduction should talk about the subject on which you are writing at the broadest level. In an introduction, you make your readers aware of what you are going to argue later in the essay. An introduction can discuss a little about the history of the topic, how it was understood till now, and a framework of what you are going to talk about ahead. You can think of your introduction as an extended form of the abstract. Since it is the first portion of your essay, it should paint a picture where the readers know exactly what’s ahead of them. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: An apt introduction can be covered in 2 to 3 paragraphs (Look at the introduction on this article if you need proof). 

Since your focus is on “food” and “diaspora”, your introductory paragraph can dwell into a little history of the relationship between the two and the importance of food in community building.] 

This is the most extensive part of any essay. It is also the one that takes up the most number of words. All the research and note-making which you did was for this part. The main body of your essay is where you put all the knowledge you gathered into words. When you are writing the body, your aim should be to make it flow, which means that all paragraphs should have a connection between them. When read in its entirety, the paragraphs should sing together rather than float all around. 

The main body is mostly around 4 to 6 paragraphs long. A sociological essay is filled with debates, theories, theorists, and examples. When writing the main body it is best to target making one or two paragraphs about the same revolving theme. When you shift to the other theme, it is best to connect it with the theme you discussed in the paragraph right above it to form a connection between the two. If you are dividing your essay into various sub-themes then the best way to correlate them is starting each new subtheme by reflecting on the last main arguments presented in the theme before it. To make a sociological essay even more enriching, include examples that exemplify the theoretical concepts better. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Though there is no word limit to the length of the paragraphs, if you keep one paragraph between 100 to 200 words, it makes the essay look more organized. 

The main body can here be divided into the categories which you formed during the first step of making the rough outline. Therefore, your essay could have 3 to 4 sub-sections discussing different themes such as: Food and Media, Caste and Class influence food practices, Politics of Food, Gendered Lens, etc.] 

This is the section where you end your essay. But ending the essay does not mean that you lose your flair in conclusion. A conclusion is an essential part of any essay because it sums up everything you just wrote. Your conclusion should be similar to a summary of your essay. You can include shortened versions of the various arguments you have referred to above in the main body, or it can raise questions for further research, and it can also provide solutions if your topic seeks one. Hence, a conclusion is a part where you get the last chance to tell your reader what you are saying through your article. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: As the introduction, the conclusion is smaller compared to the main body. Keep your conclusion within the range of 1 to 2 paragraphs. 

Your conclusion should again reiterate all the main arguments provided by you throughout the essay. Therefore it should bind together everything you have written starting from your introduction to all the debates and examples you have cited.]

Step 6: Citation and Referencing 

This is the most academic part of your sociological essay. Any academic essay should be free of plagiarism. But how can one avoid plagiarism when their essay is based on research which was originally done by others. The solution for this is to give credit to the original author for their work. In the world of academia, this is done through the processes of Citation and Referencing (sometimes also called Bibliography). Citation is done within/in-between the text, where you directly or indirectly quote the original text. Whereas, Referencing or Bibliography is done at the end of an essay where you give resources of the books or articles which you have quoted in your essay at various points. Both these processes are done so that the reader can search beyond your essay to get a better grasp of the topic. 

There are many different styles of citations and you can determine which you want to follow. Some of the most common styles of citation and referencing are MLA, APA, and Chicago style. If you are working on Google Docs or Word then the application makes your work easier because they help you curate your citations. There are also various online tools that can make citing references far easier, faster, and adhering to citation guidelines, such as an APA generator. This can save you a lot of time when it comes to referencing, and makes the task far more manageable. 

How to add citations in Google Doc: Tools → Citation

How to add citations in Word Document: References → Insert Citations 

But for those who want to cite manually, this is the basic format to follow:

• Author’s Name with Surname mentioned first, then initials 
• Article’s Title in single or double quotes
• Journal Title in Italics 
• Volume, issue number 
• Year of Publication

Example: Syrkin, A. 1984. “Notes on the Buddha’s Threats in the Dīgha Nikāya ”, Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies , vol. 7(1), pp.147-58.

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: Always make sure that your Bibliography/References are alphabetically ordered based on the first alphabet of the surname of the author and NOT numbered or bulleted. 

Phase III: Editing 

Step 7: edit/review your essay.

The truth of academic writing is that it can never be written in one go. You need to write, rewrite, and revisit your material more than once. Once you have written the first draft of your essay, do not revise it immediately. Leave it for some time, at least for four hours. Then revisit your essay and edit it based on 3 criteria. The first criteria you need to recheck for is any grammatical and/or spelling mistakes. The second criteria are to check the arguments you have posed and if the examples you have cited correlate or not. The final criteria are to read the essay as a reader and read it objectively. 

Pro Tip by Sociology Group: The more you edit the better results you get. But we think that your 3rd draft is the magic draft. Draft 1: rough essay, Draft 2: edited essay, Draft 3: final essay.

Hello! Eiti is a budding sociologist whose passion lies in reading, researching, and writing. She thrives on coffee, to-do lists, deadlines, and organization. Eiti's primary interest areas encompass food, gender, and academia.

SOC 101: Introduction to Sociology

• Introduction to Sociology
• Information Resources
• APA Resources
• MLA Resources

Writing Resources

Press the green button if you

Press the red button if you 

Basics of the Social Issue Essay

About the social issues essay.

Sociological research is required to understand and address social issues, problems and controversies. By conducting sociological research, we seek to understand the social forces, structures, and processes that impact individuals and groups within the social system.

The paper...

• is at least 5 pages and no longer than 7 pages.
• 12-point Times New Roman font.
• 1" margins on all sides.
• is double spaced throughout; no extra spaces between sections or paragraphs.
• has an introductory paragraph with a thesis statement.
• has coherently organized body paragraphs providing evidence supporting your thesis.
• has a concluding paragraph that summarizes the reasoning provided in the essay.
• is organized around these themes:

Identify and explain an important social issue facing our society. Why is the issue problematic, interesting, or controversial? What are the relevant facts? Provide data.

Using sociological concepts, identify the primary features of the social issue that provide context to the social issue you chose to examine. What sociological concepts and themes provide us the most explanatory power (e.g. class, ethnicity, deviance, social control, gender, in group- out group conflict, etc.) in understanding the complexity of the social issue? In short, in your judgment, what are we required to consider to harness a good understanding of the social issue required for potential solutions? Explain the issue through the concepts and themes as you use them, be specific.

Examine the social issue through the interpretive lens of TWO sociological theories (functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interaction, feminist theory). How do these two theories of sociology enlighten us regarding the causes and substance of the social issue you are considering in this paper? Explain the similarities and differences in these theoretical interpretations. Which theory best explains the causes, effects and substance of the social issue?

Conclude by providing an assessment of your research: Are we as a society effectively aware of and able to deal with the social issue? As a researcher, what would you recommend us to consider to effectively address the social issue?

About the Gateway Library

• SEARCH THE LIBRARY
• Thesis Generator
• Assignment Calculator

The Gateway Library has a small, curated collection of reference books at each campus but the majority of our resources are online .  Instead of building a library in the middle of campus, we've put students (YOU!) at the center of our library!  Some benefits to this type of library collection include:

• As long as you have internet connectivity, books and databases are available to you wherever you are and whenever you need them.
• Digital resources allow for centralized and efficient resource curation.
• The Gateway Library has more than 250K eBooks and 20K journals, many more than could fit on campus physically, plus several video services and a comprehensive digital reference collection.

Links in the menu on the left of the page will give you access to videos, books, articles, websites, and even test prep resources for your project or program of study!  These have been curated by the library staff in collaboration with Gateway Faculty.  The intention is to create something interesting and useful for your studies.

Search Encyclopedias and other Reference Resources:

Search for Books and Videos:

Please enable javascript to use primo.

Check  here for tips on using this search interface!

Search the Gateway Databases:

START HERE  for an overview of the databases and links to the most-used databases; you'll also find instructions for how to search the databases and navigate your results!

WE HAVE A LIBRARIAN AT EVERY CAMPUS! 

Meet your gateway librarians:, urban metro campus.

Greetings!  My name is Elizabeth Hartlaub.  I have been the Director of Library and Information Services at Gateway since the Summer of 2020.

I have been a librarian for over 15 years with both public and academic library experience.  Some professional positions I held prior to coming to Gateway are as follows: 

~ Library Operations Manager - UC Blue Ash

~ Branch Manager - Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County

I am originally from Cincinnati and attended Xavier University for my undergraduate degree in International Affairs. My career in libraries started when I worked as a Student Assistant at the XU Library! 

I was a first generation college student and found that the library provided the academic support and empowerment I needed to succeed in my studies. This doesn't go without saying that I also had an amazing group of family, friends, and other academic support at the university to help me along the way.  My advice to any student is that you are not alone as you work through your courses!  Engage with your school and personal support system early and often!

A few years after I graduated from XU, I earned a Master's Degree in Library Science at Indiana University - Bloomington. 

My favorite part of being a librarian is connecting with students and guiding them through the research and information literacy process.  Research is one of my favorite parts of being a librarian and I feel very lucky to be able to do what I love and share that knowledge with others!

In my free time, I love hiking and playing outside with my two children, going to baseball games at Great American Ball Park, and gardening in my small-but-mighty backyard garden.

One fun fact about me is that I started learning French when I was in Kindergarten.  I kept with it all the way through to earning a minor at XU.  I have visited France three times, including living there for 6 months as a part of a study abroad opportunity.  I am really rusty, but I think I can still carry on a conversation if needed.

Contact Elizabeth by...

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 859-442-4162

Office Location: UB208 (in the TIE building)

EDGEWOOD CAMPUS

Before I became a librarian, I was an architect and an historical archaeologist.  I renovate homes, and research history and genealogy for fun; I am interested in everything, so bring bring me your research questions and let's learn together!  Email, call, or chat if I can help with your information needs.

Contact Erica by...

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 859-442-4171

Office Location: E105A (within sight of the Info Commons desk at the Student Services Center)

     ** I'm the librarian closest to the Transportation Technology Center!

BOONE CAMPUS

Contact Priscilla by...

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 859-442-1163

Office Location: Boone Campus (CAM Building) Ground Floor B05

Hello, my name is Priscilla Kapungu I am your Library Specialist based at the Boone Campus.

I have 20 plus years of experience working in a special-public library at the Department of State's Harare Embassy as the Deputy director, for the Information Resource Center.

Before joining Gateway College I worked as a Customer Support Associate at Cengage Learning Group for four plus years.

One thing I enjoy in my line of work - Information Management, Program Evaluation, Interlibrary Linkages, Information Resources Literacy, is patrons and colleagues alike who are incredibly friendly and willing and ready to ask questions.

Fun fact about me is, I strongly believe in the the spirit of Ubuntu - namely “I am because we are…”

URBAN METRO CAMPUS - IC DESK

I have worked at Gateway since 2015, receiving my MLIS from Wayne State University in Michigan, after leaving an internship at Xavier University's library. My primary areas of interest were and are how to best catalog, curate, and organize information to make it easy to learn from and use.

As you might expect, I enjoy reading and researching history for fun.

Please note that the best way to contact me is by email. If you need to meet in person, I will schedule an appointment by email. I try to reply to all emails made during the work week within 24 hours.

Given my role extends beyond traditional library services, I would encourage those who are embedded in my classes to contact me for more general questions, as well as research related ones: If I cannot find an answer for you, I can find someone who can!

Contact Adam by...

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 859-442-1122

Office Location: UC - TIE Information Commons desk

Make an Appointment

Use this form to make an in-person or virtual One-on-One Appointment !

Use the Chat Pop-up ~or~ Text Us @ 859-765-1265 ew! Send us a text-message to ask a question about the Gateway Library!

    Please be sure to provide your name and email address so we can follow-up in more detail if needed.

State your topic

Your topic is the essential idea of your paper. It is usually a few words or a phrase that summarizes the subject of your paper. For your thesis statement, try to make your topic as specific as possible.

State your main idea about this topic

What are you trying to state or prove about your topic? What are you trying to persuade the reader to believe? When stating your opinion, be sure to:

• express one major ideal
• name the topic and assert something specific about it
• take a stance on an issue that you can support with facts and reasons.
• state your position on or opinion about the issue.

Give a reason that supports your main idea

Write your reason as a clear statement. Be sure that you can support this reason with logical facts and evidence.

Give another reason that supports your main idea

Give one more reason that supports your main idea.

Tell us one reason that supports your opinion. Write your reason as a clear statement. Be sure that you can support this reason with logical facts and evidence.

Include an opposing viewpoint to your main idea, if applicable

A good thesis statement acknowledges that there is always another side to the argument. So, include an opposing viewpoint (a counterargument) to your opinion. Basically, write down what a person who disagrees with your position might say about your topic.

Click the button to generate your thesis statement!

Use this assignment calculator  to determine when you should complete each part of a writing project, such as research papers and speeches (1).

1. University of Minnesota Libraries. (n.d.). Assignment calculator . University of Minnesota. Retrieved May 24, 2022, from https://www.lib.umn.edu/services/ac

• Next: Information Resources >>
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 1:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.gateway.kctcs.edu/sociology

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1. An Introduction to Sociology

Learning objectives.

1.1. What Is Sociology?

• Explain concepts central to sociology
• Describe the different levels of analysis in sociology: micro-sociology and macro-sociology
• Understand how different sociological perspectives have developed

1.2. The History of Sociology

• Explain why sociology emerged when it did
• Describe the central ideas of the founders of sociology
• Describe how sociology became a separate academic discipline

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives

• Explain what sociological theories are and how they are used
• Describe sociology as a multi-perspectival social science, which is divided into positivist, interpretive and critical paradigms
• Understand the similarities and differences between structural functionalism, critical sociology, and symbolic interactionism

1.4. Why Study Sociology?

• Explain why it is worthwhile to study sociology
• Identify ways sociology is applied in the real world

Introduction to Sociology

Concerts, sports games, and political rallies can have very large crowds. When you attend one of these events, you may know only the people you came with. Yet you may experience a feeling of connection to the group. You are one of the crowd. You cheer and applaud when everyone else does. You boo and yell alongside them. You move out of the way when someone needs to get by, and you say “excuse me” when you need to leave. You know how to behave in this kind of crowd.

It can be a very different experience if you are travelling in a foreign country and find yourself in a crowd moving down the street. You may have trouble figuring out what is happening. Is the crowd just the usual morning rush, or is it a political protest of some kind? Perhaps there was some sort of accident or disaster. Is it safe in this crowd, or should you try to extract yourself? How can you find out what is going on? Although you are in it, you may not feel like you are part of this crowd. You may not know what to do or how to behave.

Even within one type of crowd, different groups exist and different behaviours are on display. At a rock concert, for example, some may enjoy singing along, others may prefer to sit and observe, while still others may join in a mosh pit or try crowd surfing. On February 28, 2010, Sydney Crosby scored the winning goal against the United States team in the gold medal hockey game at the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Two hundred thousand jubilant people filled the streets of downtown Vancouver to celebrate and cap off two weeks of uncharacteristically vibrant, joyful street life in Vancouver. Just over a year later, on June 15, 2011, the Vancouver Canucks lost the seventh hockey game of the Stanley Cup finals against the Boston Bruins. One hundred thousand people had been watching the game on outdoor screens. Eventually 155,000 people filled the downtown streets. Rioting and looting led to hundreds of injuries, burnt cars, trashed storefronts and property damage totaling an estimated $4.2 million. Why was the crowd response to the two events so different?

A key insight of sociology is that the simple fact of being in a group changes your behaviour. The group is a phenomenon that is more than the sum of its parts. Why do we feel and act differently in different types of social situations? Why might people of a single group exhibit different behaviours in the same situation? Why might people acting similarly not feel connected to others exhibiting the same behaviour? These are some of the many questions sociologists ask as they study people and societies.

A dictionary defines sociology as the systematic study of society and social interaction. The word “sociology” is derived from the Latin word socius (companion) and the Greek word logos (speech or reason), which together mean “reasoned speech about companionship”. How can the experience of companionship or togetherness be put into words or explained? While this is a starting point for the discipline, sociology is actually much more complex. It uses many different methods to study a wide range of subject matter and to apply these studies to the real world.

The sociologist Dorothy Smith (1926 – ) defines the social as the “ongoing concerting and coordinating of individuals’ activities” (Smith 1999). Sociology is the systematic study of all those aspects of life designated by the adjective “social.” These aspects of social life never simply occur; they are organized processes. They can be the briefest of everyday interactions—moving to the right to let someone pass on a busy sidewalk, for example—or the largest and most enduring interactions—such as the billions of daily exchanges that constitute the circuits of global capitalism. If there are at least two people involved, even in the seclusion of one’s mind, then there is a social interaction that entails the “ongoing concerting and coordinating of activities.” Why does the person move to the right on the sidewalk? What collective process lead to the decision that moving to the right rather than the left is normal? Think about the T-shirts in your drawer at home. What are the sequences of linkages and social relationships that link the T-shirts in your chest of drawers to the dangerous and hyper-exploitive garment factories in rural China or Bangladesh? These are the type of questions that point to the unique domain and puzzles of the social that sociology seeks to explore and understand.

What Are Society and Culture?

Sociologists study all aspects and levels of society. A society is a group of people whose members interact, reside in a definable area, and share a culture. A culture includes the group’s shared practices, values, beliefs, norms and artifacts. One sociologist might analyze video of people from different societies as they carry on everyday conversations to study the rules of polite conversation from different world cultures. Another sociologist might interview a representative sample of people to see how email and instant messaging have changed the way organizations are run. Yet another sociologist might study how migration determined the way in which language spread and changed over time. A fourth sociologist might study the history of international agencies like the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund to examine how the globe became divided into a First World and a Third World after the end of the colonial era.

These examples illustrate the ways society and culture can be studied at different levels of analysis , from the detailed study of face-to-face interactions to the examination of large-scale historical processes affecting entire civilizations. It is common to divide these levels of analysis into different gradations based on the scale of interaction involved. As discussed in later chapters, sociologists break the study of society down into four separate levels of analysis: micro, meso, macro, and global. The basic distinction, however, is between micro-sociology and macro-sociology .

The study of cultural rules of politeness in conversation is an example of micro-sociology. At the micro- level of analysis, the focus is on the social dynamics of intimate, face-to-face interactions. Research is conducted with a specific set of individuals such as conversational partners, family members, work associates, or friendship groups. In the conversation study example, sociologists might try to determine how people from different cultures interpret each other’s behaviour to see how different rules of politeness lead to misunderstandings. If the same misunderstandings occur consistently in a number of different interactions, the sociologists may be able to propose some generalizations about rules of politeness that would be helpful in reducing tensions in mixed-group dynamics (e.g., during staff meetings or international negotiations). Other examples of micro-level research include seeing how informal networks become a key source of support and advancement in formal bureaucracies or how loyalty to criminal gangs is established.

Macro -sociology focuses on the properties of large-scale, society-wide social interactions: the dynamics of institutions, classes, or whole societies. The example above of the influence of migration on changing patterns of language usage is a macro-level phenomenon because it refers to structures or processes of social interaction that occur outside or beyond the intimate circle of individual social acquaintances. These include the economic and other circumstances that lead to migration; the educational, media, and other communication structures that help or hinder the spread of speech patterns; the class, racial, or ethnic divisions that create different slangs or cultures of language use; the relative isolation or integration of different communities within a population; and so on. Other examples of macro-level research include  examining why women are far less likely than men to reach positions of power in society or why fundamentalist Christian religious movements play a more prominent role in American politics than they do in Canadian politics. In each case, the site of the analysis shifts away from the nuances and detail of micro-level interpersonal life to the broader, macro-level systematic patterns that structure social change and social cohesion in society.

The relationship between the micro and the macro remains one of the key problems confronting sociology. The German sociologist Georg Simmel pointed out that macro-level processes are in fact nothing more than the sum of all the unique interactions between specific individuals at any one time (1908), yet they have properties of their own which would be missed if sociologists only focused on the interactions of specific individuals. Émile Durkheim’s classic study of suicide (1897) is a case in point. While suicide is one of the most personal, individual, and intimate acts imaginable, Durkheim demonstrated that rates of suicide differed between religious communities—Protestants, Catholics, and Jews—in a way that could not be explained by the individual factors involved in each specific case. The different rates of suicide had to be explained by macro-level variables associated with the different religious beliefs and practices of the faith communities. We will return to this example in more detail later. On the other hand, macro-level phenomena like class structures, institutional organizations, legal systems, gender stereotypes, and urban ways of life provide the shared context for everyday life but do not explain its nuances and micro-variations very well. Macro-level structures constrain the daily interactions of the intimate circles in which we move, but they are also filtered through localized perceptions and “lived” in a myriad of inventive and unpredictable ways.

The Sociological Imagination

Although the scale of sociological studies and the methods of carrying them out are different, the sociologists involved in them all have something in common. Each of them looks at society using what pioneer sociologist C. Wright Mills called the sociological imagination , sometimes also referred to as the “sociological lens” or “sociological perspective.” In a sense, this was Mills’ way of addressing the dilemmas of the macro/micro divide in sociology. Mills defined sociological imagination as how individuals understand their own and others’ pasts in relation to history and social structure (1959). It is the capacity to see an individual’s private troubles in the context of the broader social processes that structure them. This enables the sociologist to examine what Mills called “personal troubles of milieu” as “public issues of social structure,” and vice versa.

Mills reasoned that private troubles like being overweight, being unemployed, having marital difficulties, or feeling purposeless or depressed can be purely personal in nature. It is possible for them to be addressed and understood in terms of personal, psychological, or moral attributes, either one’s own or those of the people in one’s immediate milieu. In an individualistic society like our own, this is in fact the most likely way that people will regard the issues they confront: “I have an addictive personality;” “I can’t get a break in the job market;” “My husband is unsupportive;” etc. However, if private troubles are widely shared with others, they indicate that there is a common social problem that has its source in the way social life is structured. At this level, the issues are not adequately understood as simply private troubles. They are best addressed as public issues that require a collective response to resolve.

Obesity, for example, has been increasingly recognized as a growing problem for both children and adults in North America. Michael Pollan cites statistics that three out of five Americans are overweight and one out of five is obese (2006). In Canada in 2012, just under one in five adults (18.4 percent) were obese, up from 16 percent of men and 14.5 percent of women in 2003 (Statistics Canada 2013). Obesity is therefore not simply a private trouble concerning the medical issues, dietary practices, or exercise habits of specific individuals. It is a widely shared social issue that puts people at risk for chronic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. It also creates significant social costs for the medical system.

Pollan argues that obesity is in part a product of the increasingly sedentary and stressful lifestyle of modern, capitalist society, but more importantly it is a product of the industrialization of the food chain, which since the 1970s has produced increasingly cheap and abundant food with significantly more calories due to processing. Additives like corn syrup, which are much cheaper to produce than natural sugars, led to the trend of super-sized fast foods and soft drinks in the 1980s. As Pollan argues, trying to find a processed food in the supermarket without a cheap, calorie-rich, corn-based additive is a challenge. The sociological imagination in this example is the capacity to see the private troubles and attitudes associated with being overweight as an issue of how the industrialization of the food chain has altered the human/environment relationship, in particular with respect to the types of food we eat and the way we eat them.

By looking at individuals and societies and how they interact through this lens, sociologists are able to examine what influences behaviour, attitudes, and culture. By applying systematic and scientific methods to this process, they try to do so without letting their own biases and pre-conceived ideas influence their conclusions.

Studying Patterns: How Sociologists View Society

All sociologists are interested in the experiences of individuals and how those experiences are shaped by interactions with social groups and society as a whole. To a sociologist, the personal decisions an individual makes do not exist in a vacuum. Cultural patterns and social forces put pressure on people to select one choice over another. Sociologists try to identify these general patterns by examining the behaviour of large groups of people living in the same society and experiencing the same societal pressures.

Understanding the relationship between the individual and society is one of the most difficult sociological problems, however. Partly this is because of the reified way these two terms are used in everyday speech. Reification refers to the way in which abstract concepts, complex processes, or mutable social relationships come to be thought of as “things.” A prime example of this is when people say that “society” caused an individual to do something or to turn out in a particular way. In writing essays, first-year sociology students sometimes refer to “society” as a cause of social behaviour or as an entity with independent agency. On the other hand, the “individual” is a being that seems solid, tangible, and independent of anything going on outside of the skin sack that contains its essence. This conventional distinction between society and the individual is a product of reification in so far as both society and the individual appear as independent objects. A concept of “the individual” and a concept of “society” have been given the status of real, substantial, independent objects. As we will see in the chapters to come, society and the individual are neither objects, nor are they independent of one another. An “individual” is inconceivable without the relationships to others that define his or her internal subjective life and his or her external socially defined roles.

The problem for sociologists is that these concepts of the individual and society and the relationship between them are thought of in terms established by a very common moral framework in modern democratic societies, namely that of individual responsibility and individual choice. Often in this framework, any suggestion that an individual’s behaviour needs to be understood in terms of that person’s social context is dismissed as “letting the individual off” of taking personal responsibility for their actions.

Talking about society is akin to being morally soft or lenient. Sociology, as a social science, remains neutral on these type of moral questions. The conceptualization of the individual and society is much more complex. The sociological problem is to be able to see the individual as a thoroughly social being and yet as a being who has agency and free choice. Individuals are beings who do take on individual responsibilities in their everyday social roles and risk social consequences when they fail to live up to them. The manner in which they take on responsibilities and sometimes the compulsion to do so are socially defined however. The sociological problem is to be able to see society as a dimension of experience characterized by regular and predictable patterns of behaviour that exist independently of any specific individual’s desires or self-understanding. Yet at the same time a society is nothing but the ongoing social relationships and activities of specific individuals.

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

The individual in society: choices of aboriginal gang members.

In 2010 the CBC program The Current aired a report about several young aboriginal men who were serving time in prison in Saskatchewan for gang-related activities (CBC   2010). They all expressed desires to be able to deal with their drug addiction issues, return to their families, and assume their responsibilities when their sentences were complete. They wanted to have their own places with nice things in them. However, according to the CBC report, 80 percent of the prison population in the Saskatchewan Correctional Centre were aboriginal and 20 percent of those were gang members. This is consistent with national statistics on aboriginal incarceration which showed that in 2010–2011, the aboriginal incarceration rate was 10 times higher than for the non-aboriginal population. While aboriginal people account for about 4 percent of the Canadian population, in 2013 they made up 23.2 percent of the federal penitentiary population. In 2001 they made up only 17 percent of the penitentiary population. Aboriginal overrepresentation in prisons has continued to grow substantially (Office of the Correctional Investigator 2013).The outcomes of aboriginal incarceration are also bleak. The federal Office of the Correctional Investigator summarized the situation as follows. Aboriginal inmates are:

• Routinely classified as higher risk and higher need in categories such as employment, community reintegration, and family supports
• Released later in their sentence (lower parole grant rates); most leave prison at Statutory Release or Warrant Expiry dates
• Overrepresented in segregation and maximum security populations
• Disproportionately involved in use-of-force interventions and incidents of prison self-injury
• More likely to return to prison on revocation of parole, often for administrative reasons, not criminal violations (2013)

The federal report notes that “the high rate of incarceration for aboriginal peoples has been linked to systemic discrimination and attitudes based on racial or cultural prejudice, as well as economic and social disadvantage, substance abuse and intergenerational loss, violence and trauma” (2013).

This is clearly a case in which the situation of the incarcerated inmates interviewed on the CBC program has been structured by historical social patterns and power relationships that confront aboriginal people in Canada generally. How do we understand it at the individual level however, at the level of personal decision making and individual responsibilities? One young inmate described how, at the age of 13, he began to hang around with his cousins who were part of a gang. He had not grown up with “the best life” with family members suffering from addiction issues and traumas. The appeal of what appeared as a fast and exciting lifestyle—the sense of freedom and of being able to make one’s own life, instead of enduring poverty—was compelling. He began to earn money by “running dope” but also began to develop addictions. He was expelled from school for recruiting gang members. The only job he ever had was selling drugs. The circumstances in which he and the other inmates had entered the gang life and the difficulties getting out of it they knew awaited them when they left prison reflect a set of decision-making parameters fundamentally different than those facing most non-aboriginal people in Canada.

A key basis of the sociological perspective is the concept that the individual and society are inseparable. It is impossible to study one without the other. German sociologist Norbert Elias called the process of simultaneously analyzing the behaviour of individuals and the society that shapes that behaviour figuration . He described it through a metaphor of dancing. There can be no dance without the dancers, but there can be no dancers without the dance. Without the dancers, a dance is just an idea about motions in a choreographer’s head. Without a dance, there is just a group of people moving around a floor. Similarly, there is no society without the individuals that make it up, and there are also no individuals who are not affected by the society in which they live (Elias 1978).

Since ancient times, people have been fascinated by the relationship between individuals and the societies to which they belong. The ancient Greeks might be said to have provided the foundations of sociology through the distinction they drew between physis (nature) and nomos (law or custom). Whereas nature or physis for the Greeks was “what emerges from itself” without human intervention, nomos in the form of laws or customs, were human conventions designed to constrain human behaviour. Histories by Herodotus (484–425 BCE)   was a proto-anthropological work that described the great variations in the nomos of different ancient societies around the Mediterranean, indicating that human social life was not a product of nature but a product of human creation. If human social life was the product of an invariable human or biological nature, all cultures would be the same. The concerns of the later Greek philosophers Socrates (469–399 BCE), Plato (428–347 BCE), and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) with the ideal form of human community (the polis or city-state) can be derived from the ethical dilemmas of this difference between human nature and human norms. The modern sociological term “norm” (i.e., a social rule that regulates human behaviour) comes from the Greek term nomos .

In the 13th century, Ma Tuan-Lin, a Chinese historian, first recognized social dynamics as an underlying component of historical development in his seminal encyclopedia, General Study of Literary Remains . The study charted the historical development of Chinese state administration from antiquity in a manner akin to contemporary institutional analyses. The next century saw the emergence of the historian some consider to be the world’s first sociologist, the Berber scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) of Tunisia. His Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History is known for going beyond descriptive history to an analysis of historical processes of change based on an understanding of “the nature of things which are born of civilization” (Khaldun quoted in Becker and Barnes 1961). Key to his analysis was the distinction between the sedentary life of cities and the nomadic life of pastoral peoples like the Bedouin and Berbers. The nomads, who exist independent of external authority, developed a social bond based on blood lineage and “ esprit de corps” (‘Asabijja) ,” which enabled them to mobilize quickly and act in a unified and concerted manner in response to the rugged circumstances of desert life. The sedentaries of the city entered into a different cycle in which esprit de corp is subsumed to institutional power and political factions and the need to be focused on subsistence is replaced by a trend toward increasing luxury, ease and refinements of taste. The relationship between the two poles of existence, nomadism and sedentary life, was at the basis of the development and decay of civilizations” (Becker and Barnes 1961).

However, it was not until the 19th century that the basis of the modern discipline of sociology can be said to have been truly established. The impetus for the ideas that culminated in sociology can be found in the three major transformations that defined modern society and the culture of modernity: the development of modern science from the 16th century onward, the emergence of democratic forms of government with the American and French Revolutions (1775–1783 and 1789–1799 respectively), and the Industrial Revolution beginning in the 18th century. Not only was the framework for sociological knowledge established in these events, but also the initial motivation for creating a science of society. Early sociologists like Comte and Marx sought to formulate a rational, evidence-based response to the experience of massive social dislocation and unprecedented social problems brought about by the transition from the European feudal era to capitalism. Whether the intention was to restore order to the chaotic disintegration of society, as in Comte’s case, or to provide the basis for a revolutionary transformation in Marx’s, a rational and scientifically comprehensive knowledge of society and its processes was required. It was in this context that “society” itself, in the modern sense of the word, became visible as a phenomenon to early investigators of the social condition.

The development of modern science provided the model of knowledge needed for sociology to move beyond earlier moral, philosophical, and religious types of reflection on the human condition. Key to the development of science was the technological mindset that Max Weber termed the disenchantment of the world : “principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather one can, in principle, master all things by calculation” (1919). Modern science abandoned the medieval view of the world in which God, “the unmoved mover,” defined the natural and social world as a changeless, cyclical creation ordered and given purpose by divine will. Instead modern science combined two philosophical traditions that had historically been at odds: Plato’s rationalism and Aristotle’s empiricism. Rationalism sought the laws that governed the truth of reason and ideas, and in the hands of early scientists like Galileo and Newton, found its highest form of expression in the logical formulations of mathematics. Empiricism sought to discover the laws of the operation of the world through the careful, methodical, and detailed observation of the world. The new scientific worldview therefore combined the clear and logically coherent conceptual formulation of propositions from rationalism with an empirical method of inquiry based on observation through the senses. Sociology adopted these core principles to emphasize that claims about society had to be clearly formulated and based on evidence-based procedures.

The emergence of democratic forms of government in the 18th century demonstrated that humans had the capacity to change the world. The rigid hierarchy of medieval society was not a God-given eternal order, but a human order that could be challenged and improved upon through human intervention. Society came to be seen as both historical and the product of human endeavours. Age of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Voltaire, Montaigne, and Rousseau developed general principles that could be used to explain social life. Their emphasis shifted from the histories and exploits of the aristocracy to the life of ordinary people. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792) extended the critical analysis of her male Enlightenment contemporaries to the situation of women. Significantly for modern sociology they proposed that the use of reason could be applied to address social ills and to emancipate humanity from servitude. Wollstonecraft for example argued that simply allowing women to have a proper education would enable them to contribute to the improvement of society, especially through their influence on children. On the other hand, the bloody experience of the democratic revolutions, particularly the French Revolution, which resulted in the “Reign of Terror” and ultimately Napoleon’s attempt to subjugate Europe, also provided a cautionary tale for the early sociologists about the need for sober scientific assessment of society to address social problems.

The Industrial Revolution in a strict sense refers to the development of industrial methods of production, the introduction of industrial machinery, and the organization of labour in new manufacturing systems. These economic changes emblemize the massive transformation of human life brought about by the creation of wage labour, capitalist competition, increased mobility, urbanization, individualism, and all the social problems they wrought: poverty, exploitation, dangerous working conditions, crime, filth, disease, and the loss of family and other traditional support networks, etc. It was a time of great social and political upheaval with the rise of empires that exposed many people—for the first time—to societies and cultures other than their own. Millions of people were moving into cities and many people were turning away from their traditional religious beliefs. Wars, strikes, revolts, and revolutionary actions were reactions to underlying social tensions that had never existed before and called for critical examination. August Comte in particular envisioned the new science of sociology as the antidote to conditions that he described as “moral anarchy.”

Sociology therefore emerged as an extension of the new worldview of science; as a part of the Enlightenment project and its appreciation of historical change, social injustice, and the possibilities of social reform; and as a crucial response to the new and unprecedented types of social problems that appeared in the 19th century. It did not emerge as a unified science, however, as its founders brought distinctly different perspectives to its early formulations.

August Comte: The Father of Sociology

The term sociology was first coined in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (1748–1836) in an unpublished manuscript (Fauré et al. 1999). In 1838, the term was reinvented by Auguste Comte (1798–1857). The contradictions of Comte’s life and the times he lived through can be in large part read into the concerns that led to his development of sociology. He was born in 1798, year 6 of the new French Republic, to staunch monarchist and Catholic parents, who lived comfortably off the father’s earnings as a minor bureaucrat in the tax office. Comte originally studied to be an engineer, but after rejecting his parents’ conservative views and declaring himself a republican and free spirit at the age of 13, he got kicked out of school at 18 for leading a school riot, which ended his chances of getting a formal education and a position as an academic or government official.

He became a secretary of the utopian socialist philosopher Claude Henri de Rouvroy Comte de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) until they had a falling out in 1824 (after St. Simon perhaps purloined some of Comte’s essays and signed his own name to them). Nevertheless, they both thought that society could be studied using the same scientific methods utilized in the natural sciences. Comte also believed in the potential of social scientists to work toward the betterment of society and coined the slogan “order and progress” to reconcile the opposing progressive and conservative factions that had divided the crisis-ridden, post-revolutionary French society. Comte proposed a renewed, organic spiritual order in which the authority of science would be the means to reconcile the people in each social strata with their place in the order. It is a testament to his influence that the phrase “order and progress” adorns the Brazilian coat of arms (Collins and Makowsky 1989).

Comte named the scientific study of social patterns positivism . He described his philosophy in a well-attended and popular series of lectures, which he published as The Course in Positive Philosophy (1830–1842) and A General View of Positivism (1848). He believed that using scientific methods to reveal the laws by which societies and individuals interact would usher in a new “positivist” age of history. His main sociological theory was the law of three stages , which held that all human societies and all forms of human knowledge evolve through three distinct stages from primitive to advanced: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive.The key variable in defining these stages was the way a people understand the concept of causation or think about their place in the world.

In the theological stage, humans explain causes in terms of the will of anthropocentric gods (the gods cause things to happen). In the metaphysical stage, humans explain causes in terms of abstract, “speculative” ideas like nature, natural rights, or “self-evident” truths. This was the basis of his critique of the Enlightenment philosophers whose ideas about natural rights and freedoms had led to the French Revolution but also to the chaos of its aftermath. In his view, the “negative” or metaphysical knowledge of the philosophers was based on dogmatic ideas that could not be reconciled when they were in contraction. This lead to irreconcilable conflict and moral anarchy. Finally, in the positive stage, humans explain causes in terms of scientific procedures and laws (i.e., “positive” knowledge based on propositions limited to what can be empirically observed). Comte believed that this would be the final stage of human social evolution because science would reconcile the division between political factions of order and progress by eliminating the basis for moral and intellectual anarchy. The application of positive philosophy would lead to the unification of society and of the sciences (Comte 1830).

Although Comte’s positivism is a little odd by today’s standards, it inaugurated the development of the positivist tradition within sociology. In principle,  positivism is the sociological perspective that attempts to approach the study of society in the same way that the natural sciences approach the natural world. In fact, Comte’s preferred term for this approach was “social physics”—the “sciences of observation” applied to social phenomena, which he saw as the culmination of the historical development of the sciences. More specifically, for Comte, positivism:

• “Regards all phenomena as subjected to invariable natural laws”
• Pursues “an accurate discovery of these laws, with a view of reducing them to the smallest possible number”
• Limits itself to analyzing the observable circumstances of phenomena and to connecting them by the “natural relations of succession and resemblance” instead of making metaphysical claims about their essential or divine nature (Comte 1830)

While Comte never in fact conducted any social research and took, as the object of analysis, the laws that governed what he called the general human “mind” of a society (difficult to observe empirically), his notion of sociology as a positivist science that might effectively socially engineer a better society was deeply influential. Where his influence waned was a result of the way in which he became increasingly obsessive and hostile to all criticism as his ideas progressed beyond positivism as the “science of society” to positivism as the basis of a new cult-like, technocratic “religion of humanity.” The new social order he imagined was deeply conservative and hierarchical, a kind of a caste system with every level of society obliged to reconcile itself with its “scientifically” allotted place. Comte imagined himself at the pinnacle of society, taking the title of “Great Priest of Humanity.” The moral and intellectual anarchy he decried would be resolved, but only because the rule of sociologists would eliminate the need for unnecessary and divisive democratic dialogue. Social order “must ever be incompatible with a perpetual discussion of the foundations of society” (Comte 1830).

Karl Marx: The Ruthless Critique of Everything Existing

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German philosopher and economist. In 1848 he and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) co-authored the Communist Manifesto . This book is one of the most influential political manuscripts in history. It also presents in a highly condensed form Marx’s theory of society, which differed from what Comte proposed. Whereas Comte viewed the goal of sociology as recreating a unified, post-feudal spiritual order that would help to institutionalize a new era of political and social stability, Marx developed a critical analysis of capitalism that saw the material or economic basis of inequality and power relations as the cause of social instability and conflict. The focus of sociology, or what Marx called historical materialism (the “materialist conception of history”), should be the “ruthless critique of everything existing,” as he said in a letter to his friend Arnold Ruge. In this way the goal of sociology would not simply be to scientifically analyze or objectively describe society, but to use a rigorous scientific analysis as a basis to change it. This framework became the foundation of contemporary critical sociology .

Marx rejected Comte’s positivism with its emphasis on describing the logical laws of the general “mind.” For Marx, Comte’s sociology was a form of idealism , a way of explaining the nature of society based on the ideas that people hold. In an idealist perspective, people invent ideas of “freedom,” “morality,” or “causality,” etc. and then change their lives and society’s institutions to conform to these ideas. This type of understanding could only ever lead to a partial analysis of social life according to Marx. Instead he believed that societies grew and changed as a result of the struggles of different social classes over control of the means of production. Historical materialism is an approach to understanding society that explains social change and human ideas in terms of underlying changes in the “mode of production” or economy; i.e., the historical transformations in the way human societies act upon their material world (the environment and its resources) in order to use it to meet their needs. Marx argues therefore that the consciousness or ideas people have about the world develop from changes in this material, economic basis. As such, the ideas of people in hunter-gatherer societies will be different than the ideas of people in feudal societies, which in turn will be different from the ideas of people in capitalist societies.

The source of historical change and transition between different historical types of society was class struggle. At the time Marx was developing his theories, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism had led to a massive increase in the wealth of society but also massive disparities in wealth and power between the owners of the factories (the bourgeoisie) and workers (the proletariat). Capitalism was still a relatively new economic system, an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods and the means to produce them. It was also a system that was inherently unstable and prone to crisis, yet increasingly global in its reach.

As Marx demonstrated in his masterpiece Capital (1867), capitalism’s instability is based on the processes by which capitalists accumulate their capital or assets, namely by engaging in cold-blooded competition with each other through the sale of commodities in the competitive market. There is a continuous need to expand markets for goods and to reduce the costs of production in order to create ever cheaper and more competitive products. This leads to a downward pressure on wages, the introduction of labour-saving technologies that increase unemployment, the failure of non-competitive businesses, periodic economic crises and recessions, and the global expansion of capitalism as businesses seek markets to exploit and cheaper sources of labour. Yet as he pointed out, it was the workers’ labour that actually produces wealth. The capitalists who owned the factories and means of production were in a sense parasitic on workers’ labour. The injustice of the system was palpable. Marx predicted that inequalities of capitalism would become so extreme that workers would eventually recognize their common class interests, develop a common “class consciousness” or understanding of their situation, and revolt. Class struggle would lead to the destruction of the institution of private capital and to the final stage in human history, which he called “communism.”

Although Marx did not call his analysis sociology, his sociological innovation was to provide a social analysis of the economic system. Whereas Adam Smith (1723–1790) and the political economists of the 19th century tried to explain the economic laws of supply and demand solely as a market mechanism (similar to the abstract discussions of stock market indices and investment returns in business pages of newspapers today), Marx’s analysis showed the social relationships that had created the market system and the social repercussions of their operation. As such, his analysis of modern society was not static or simply descriptive. He was able to put his finger on the underlying dynamism and continuous change that characterized capitalist society. In a famous passage from The Communist Manifesto , he and Engels described the restless and destructive penchant for change inherent in the capitalist mode of production:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty, and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all which is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind (Marx and Engels 1848).

Marx was also able to create an effective basis for critical sociology in that what he aimed for in his analysis was, as he put it in another letter to Arnold Ruge, “the self-clarification of the struggles and wishes of the age.” While he took a clear and principled value position in his critique, he did not do so dogmatically, based on an arbitrary moral position of what he personally thought was good and bad. He felt rather that a critical social theory must engage in clarifying and supporting the issues of social justice that were inherent within the existing struggles and wishes of the age. In his own work, he endeavoured to show how the variety of specific work actions, strikes, and revolts by workers in different occupations for better pay, safer working conditions, shorter hours, the right to unionize, etc. contained the seeds for a vision of universal equality, collective justice, and ultimately the ideal of a classless society.

Harriet Martineau: The First Woman Sociologist?

Harriet Martineau (1802–1876) was one of the first women sociologists in the 19th century. There are a number of other women who might compete with her for the title of the first woman sociologist, such as Catherine Macauley, Mary Wollstonecraft, Flora Tristan, and Beatrice Webb, but Martineau’s specifically sociological credentials are strong. She was for a long time known principally for her English translation of Comte’s Course in Positive Philosophy. Through this popular translation she introduced the concept of sociology as a methodologically rigorous discipline to an English-speaking audience. But she also created a body of her own work in the tradition of the great social reform movements of the 19th century and introduced a sorely missing woman’s perspective into the discourse on society.

It was a testament to her abilities that after she became impoverished at the age of 24 with the death of her father, brother, and fiancé, she was able to earn her own income as the first woman journalist in Britain to write under her own name. From the age of 12, she suffered from severe hearing loss and was obliged to use a large ear trumpet to converse. She impressed a wide audience with a series of articles on political economy in 1832. In 1834 she left England to engage in two years of study of the new republic of the United States and its emerging institutions: prisons, insane asylums, factories, farms, Southern plantations, universities, hospitals, and churches. On the basis of extensive research, interviews and observations, she published Society in America and worked with abolitionists on the social reform of slavery (Zeitlin 1997). She also worked for social reform in the situation of women: the right to vote, have an education, pursue an occupation, and enjoy the same legal rights as men. Together with Florence Nightingale, she worked on the development of public health care, which led to early formulations of the welfare system in Britain (McDonald 1998).

Particularly innovative was her early work on sociological methodology, How to Observe Manners and Morals (1838) . In this volume she developed the ground work for a systematic social-scientific approach to studying human behaviour. She recognized that the issues of the researcher/subject relationship would have to be addressed differently in a social, as opposed to a natural, science. The observer, or “traveller,” as she put it, needed to respect three criteria to obtain valid research: impartiality, critique, and sympathy. The impartial observer could not allow herself to be “perplexed or disgusted” by foreign practices that she could not personally reconcile herself with. Yet at the same time she saw the goal of sociology to be the fair but critical assessment of the moral status of a culture. In particular, the goal of sociology was to challenge forms of racial, sexual, or class domination in the name of autonomy: the right of every person to be a “self-directing moral being.” Finally, what distinguished the science of social observation from the natural sciences was that the researcher had to have unqualified sympathy for the subjects being studied (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). This later became a central principle of Max Weber’s interpretive sociology , although it is not clear that Weber read Martineau’s work.

A large part of her research in the United States analyzed the situations of contradiction between stated public morality and actual moral practices. For example, she was fascinated with the way that the formal democratic right to free speech enabled slavery abolitionists to hold public meetings, but when the meetings were violently attacked by mobs, the abolitionists and not the mobs were accused of inciting the violence (Zeitlin 1997). This emphasis on studying contradictions followed from the distinction she drew between morals —society’s collective ideas of permitted and forbidden behaviour—and manners— the actual patterns of social action and association in society. As she realized the difficulty in getting an accurate representation of an entire society based on a limited number of interviews, she developed the idea that one could identify key “Things” experienced by all people—age, gender, illness, death, etc.—and examine how they were experienced differently by a sample of people from different walks of life (Lengermann and Niebrugge 2007). Martineau’s sociology therefore focused on surveying different attitudes toward “Things” and studying the anomalies that emerged when manners toward them contradicted a society’s formal morals.

Émile Durkheim: The Pathologies of the Social Order

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) helped establish sociology as a formal academic discipline by establishing the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895 and by publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method in 1895. He was born to a Jewish family in the Lorraine province of France (one of the two provinces along with Alsace that were lost to the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871). With the German occupation of Lorraine, the Jewish community suddenly became subject to sporadic anti-Semitic violence, with the Jews often being blamed for the French defeat and the economic/political instability that followed. Durkheim attributed this strange experience of anti-Semitism and scapegoating to the lack of moral purpose in modern society.

As in Comte’s time, France in the late 19th century was the site of major upheavals and sharp political divisions: the loss of the Franco-Prussian War, the Paris Commune (1871) in which 20,000 workers died, the fall and capture of Emperor Napoleon III (Napoleon I’s nephew), the creation of the Third Republic, and the Dreyfus Affair. This undoubtedly led to the focus in Durkheim’s sociology on themes of moral anarchy, decadence, disunity, and disorganization. For Durkheim, sociology was a scientific but also a “moral calling” and one of the central tasks of the sociologist was to determine “the causes of the general temporary malajustment being undergone by European societies and remedies which may relieve it” (1897). In this respect, Durkheim represented the sociologist as a kind of medical doctor, studying social pathologies of the moral order and proposing social remedies and cures. He saw healthy societies as stable, while pathological societies experienced a breakdown in social norms between individuals and society. The state of normlessness or anomie —the lack of norms that give clear direction and purpose to individual actions—was the result of “society’s insufficient presence in individuals” (1897).

His father was the eighth in a line of father-son rabbis. Although Émile was the second son, he was chosen to pursue his father’s vocation and was given a good religious and secular education. He abandoned the idea of a religious or rabbinical career, however, and became very secular in his outlook. His sociological analysis of religion in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912) was an example of this. In this work he was not interested in the theological questions of God’s existence or purpose, but in developing a very secular, sociological question: Whether God exists or not, how does religion function socially in a society? He argued that beneath the irrationalism and the “barbarous and fantastic rites” of both the most primitive and the most modern religions is their ability to satisfy real social and human needs. “There are no religions which are false” (Durkheim 1912) he said. Religion performs the key function of providing social solidarity in a society. The rituals, the worship of icons, and the belief in supernatural beings “excite, maintain or recreate certain mental states” (Durkheim 1912) that bring people together, provide a ritual and symbolic focus, and unify them. This type of analysis became the basis of the functionalist perspective in sociology. He explained the existence and persistence of religion on the basis of the necessary function it performed in unifying society.

Durkheim was also a key figure in the development of positivist sociology . He did not adopt the term positivism , because of the connection it had with Comte’s quasi-religious sociological cult. However, in Rules of the Sociological Method he defined sociology as the study of objective social facts . Social facts are those things like law, custom, morality, religious beliefs and practices, language, systems of money, credit and debt, business or professional practices, etc. that are defined externally to the individual. Social facts:

• Precede the individual and will continue to exist after he or she is gone
• Consist of details and obligations of which individuals are frequently unaware
• Are endowed with an external coercive power by reason of which individuals are controlled

For Durkheim, social facts were like the facts of the natural sciences. They could be studied without reference to the subjective experience of individuals. He argued that “social facts must be studied as things, that is, as realities external to the individual” (Durkheim 1895). Individuals experience them as obligations, duties, and restraints on their behaviour, operating independently of their will. They are hardly noticeable when individuals consent to them but provoke reaction when individuals resist.

In this way, Durkheim was very influential in defining the subject matter of the new discipline of sociology. For Durkheim, sociology was not about just any phenomena to do with the life of human beings but only those phenomena which pertained exclusively to a social level of analysis. It was not about the biological or psychological dynamics of human life, for example, but about the social facts through which the lives of individuals were constrained. Moreover, the dimension of human experience described by social facts had to be explained in its own terms. It could not be explained by biological drives or psychological characteristics of individuals. It was a dimension of reality sui generis (of its own kind, unique in its characteristics). It could not be explained by, or reduced to, its individual components without missing its most important features. As Durkheim put it, “a social fact can only be explained by another social fact” (Durkheim 1895).

This is the framework of Durkheim’s famous study of suicide. In Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897), Durkheim attempted to demonstrate the effectiveness of his rules of social research by examining suicide statistics in different police districts. Suicide is perhaps the most personal and most individual of all acts. Its motives would seem to be absolutely unique to the individual and to individual psychopathology. However, what Durkheim observed was that statistical rates of suicide remained fairly constant year by year and region by region. There was no correlation between rates of suicide and rates of psychopathology. Suicide rates did vary, however, according to the social context of the suicides: namely the religious affiliation of suicides. Protestants had higher rates of suicide than Catholics, whereas Catholics had higher rates of suicide than Jews. Durkheim argued that the key factor that explained the difference in suicide rates  (i.e., the statistical rates, not the purely individual motives for the suicides) were the different degrees of social integration of the different religious communities, measured by the amount of ritual and degree of mutual involvement in religious practice. The religious groups had differing levels of anomie, or normlessness, which Durkheim associated with high rates of suicide. Durkheim’s study was unique and insightful because he did not try to explain suicide rates in terms of individual psychopathology. Instead, he regarded the regularity of the suicide rates as a factual order, implying “the existence of collective tendencies exterior to the individual” (Durkheim 1897), and explained their variation with respect to another social fact: “Suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups of which the individual forms a part” (Durkheim 1897).

Max Weber: Verstehende Soziologie

Prominent sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) established a sociology department in Germany at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1919. Weber wrote on many topics related to sociology including political change in Russia, the condition of German farm workers, and the history of world religions. He was also a prominent public figure, playing an important role in the German peace delegation in Versailles and in drafting the ill-fated German (Weimar) constitution following the defeat of Germany in World War I.

Weber is known best for his 1904 book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism . He noted that in modern industrial societies, business leaders and owners of capital, the higher grades of skilled labour, and the most technically and commercially trained personnel were overwhelmingly Protestant. He also noted the uneven development of capitalism in Europe, and in particular how capitalism developed first in those areas dominated by Protestant sects. He asked, “Why were the districts of highest economic development at the same time particularly favourable to a revolution in the Church?” (i.e., the Protestant Reformation (1517–1648)) (Weber 1904). His answer focused on the development of the Protestant ethic— the duty to “work hard in one’s calling”—in particular Protestant sects such as Calvinism, Pietism, and Baptism.

As opposed to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church in which poverty was a virtue and labour simply a means for maintaining the individual and community, the Protestant sects began to see hard, continuous labour as a spiritual end in itself. Hard labour was firstly an ascetic technique of worldly renunciation and a defence against temptations and distractions: the unclean life, sexual temptations, and religious doubts. Secondly, the Protestant sects believed that God’s disposition toward the individual was predetermined and could never be known or influenced by traditional Christian practices like confession, penance, and buying indulgences. However, one’s chosen occupation was a “calling” given by God, and the only sign of God’s favour or recognition in this world was to receive good fortune in one’s calling. Thus material success and the steady accumulation of wealth through personal effort and prudence was seen as a sign of an individual’s state of grace. Weber argued that the ethic , or way of life, that developed around these beliefs was a key factor in creating the conditions for both the accumulation of capital, as the goal of economic activity, and for the creation of an industrious and disciplined labour force.

In this regard, Weber has often been seen as presenting an idealist explanation of the development of capital, as opposed to Marx’s historical materialist explanation. It is an element of cultural belief that leads to social change rather than the concrete organization and class struggles of the economic structure. It might be more accurate, however, to see Weber’s work building on Marx’s and to see his Protestant ethic thesis as part of a broader set of themes concerning the process of rationalization . Why did the Western world modernize and develop modern science, industry, and democracy when, for centuries, the Orient, the Indian subcontinent, and the Middle East were technically, scientifically, and culturally more advanced than the West? Weber argued that the modern forms of society developed in the West because of the process of rationalization: the general tendency of modern institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of instrumental reason—rational bureaucratic organization, calculation, and technical reason—and the overcoming of “magical” thinking (which we earlier referred to as the “disenchantment of the world”). As the impediments toward rationalization were removed, organizations and institutions were restructured on the principle of maximum efficiency and specialization, while older, traditional (inefficient) types of organization were gradually eliminated.

The irony of the Protestant ethic as one stage in this process was that the rationalization of capitalist business practices and organization of labour eventually dispensed with the religious goals of the ethic. At the end of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber pessimistically describes the fate of modern humanity as an “iron cage.” The iron cage is Weber’s metaphor for the condition of modern humanity in a technical, rationally defined, and “efficiently” organized society. Having forgotten its spiritual or other purposes of life, humanity succumbs to an order “now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production” (Weber 1904). The modern subject in the iron cage is “only a single cog in an ever-moving mechanism which prescribes to him an essentially fixed route of march” (Weber 1922).

Weber also made a major contribution to the methodology of sociological research. Along with the philosophers Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936), Weber believed that it was difficult if not impossible to apply natural science methods to accurately predict the behaviour of groups as positivist sociology hoped to do. They argued that the influence of culture on human behaviour had to be taken into account. What was distinct about human behaviour was that it is essentially meaningful. Human behaviour could not be understood independently of the meanings that individuals attributed to it. A Martian’s analysis of the activities in a skateboard park would be hopelessly confused unless it  understood that the skateboarders were motivated by the excitement of risk taking and the pleasure in developing skills. This insight into the meaningful nature of human behaviour even applied to the sociologists themselves, who, they believed, should be aware of how their own cultural biases could influence their research. To deal with this problem, Weber and Dilthey introduced the concept of Verstehen , a German word that means to understand in a deep way. In seeking Verstehen , outside observers of a social world—an entire culture or a small setting—attempt to understand it empathetically from an insider’s point of view.

In his essay “The Methodological Foundations of Sociology,” Weber described sociology as “a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects” (Weber 1922). In this way he delimited the field that sociology studies in a manner almost opposite to that of Émile Durkheim. Rather than defining sociology as the study of the unique dimension of external social facts, sociology was concerned with social action : actions to which individuals attach subjective meanings. “Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or individuals), it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course” (Weber 1922). The actions of the young skateboarders can be explained because they hold the experienced boarders in esteem and attempt to emulate their skills even if it means scraping their bodies on hard concrete from time to time. Weber and other like-minded sociologists founded interpretive sociology whereby social researchers strive to find systematic means to interpret and describe the subjective meanings behind social processes, cultural norms, and societal values. This approach led to research methods like ethnography, participant observation, and phenomenological analysis whose aim was not to generalize or predict (as in positivistic social science), but to systematically gain an in-depth understanding of social worlds. The natural sciences may be precise, but from the interpretive sociology point of view their methods confine them to study only the external characteristics of things.

Georg Simmel: A Sociology of Forms

Georg Simmel (1858–1918) was one of the founding fathers of sociology, although his place in the discipline is not always recognized. In part, this oversight may be explained by the fact that Simmel was a Jewish scholar in Germany at the turn of 20th century, and until 1914 was unable to attain a proper position as a professor due to anti-Semitism. Despite the brilliance of his sociological insights, the quantity of his publications, and the popularity of his public lectures as Privatdozent at the University of Berlin, his lack of a regular academic position prevented him from having the kind of student following that would create a legacy around his ideas. It might also be explained by some of the unconventional and varied topics that he wrote on: the structure of flirting, the sociology of adventure, the importance of secrecy, the patterns of fashion, the social significance of money, etc. He was generally seen at the time as not having a systematic or integrated theory of society. However, his insights into how social forms emerge at the micro-level of interaction and how they relate to macro-level phenomena remain valuable in contemporary sociology.

Simmel’s sociology focused on the key question, “How is society possible?” His answer led him to develop what he called formal sociology , or the sociology of social forms. In his essay “The Problem of Sociology,” Simmel reaches a strange conclusion for a sociologist: “There is no such thing as society ‘as such.’” “Society” is just the name we give to the “extraordinary multitude and variety of interactions [that] operate at any one moment” (Simmel 1908). This is a basic insight of micro-sociology. However useful it is to talk about macro-level phenomena like capitalism, the moral order, or rationalization, in the end what these phenomena refer to is a multitude of ongoing, unfinished processes of interaction between specific individuals . Nevertheless, the phenomena of social life do have recognizable forms, and the forms do guide the behaviour of individuals in a regularized way. A bureaucracy is a form of social interaction that persists from day to day. One does not come into work one morning to discover that the rules, job descriptions, paperwork, and hierarchical order of the bureaucracy have disappeared. Simmel’s questions were: How do the forms of social life persist? How did they emerge in the first place? What happens when they get fixed and permanent?

Simmel notes that “society exists where a number of individuals enter into interaction” (1908). What he means is that whenever people gather, something happens that would not have happened if the individuals had remained alone. People attune themselves to one another in a way that is very similar to musicians tuning their instruments to one another. A pattern or form of interaction emerges that begins to guide or coordinate the behaviour of the individuals. An example Simmel uses is of a cocktail party where a subtle set of instructions begins to emerge which defines what can and cannot be said. In a cocktail party where the conversation is light and witty, the effect would be jarring of someone suddenly trying to sell you an insurance policy or talking about the spousal abuse they had suffered. The person would be thought of as being crass or inappropriate. Similarly in the pleasant pastime of flirtation, if one of the parties began to press the other to consummate the flirtation by having sex, the flirtation would be over. Flirtation is a form of interaction in which the answer to the question of having sex—yes or no—is perpetually suspended.

In both examples, Simmel argued that the social interaction had taken on a specific form . Both were examples of what he called the play form of social interaction, or pure “sociability”: the pleasure people experience from the mere fact of being together, regardless of the content of the interaction (Simmel 1910). If the cocktail party conversation suddenly turns to a business proposition or an overly personal confession, it is no longer playful. The underlying form of the interaction has been violated, even if the participants were not consciously aware that they had adopted a particular form of interaction. Simmel proposed that sociology would be the study of the social forms that recur in different contexts and with different social contents. The same play form governs the interaction in two different contexts with two different contents of interaction: one is the free-ranging content of polite conversation; the other is sexual desire. Among other common forms that Simmel studied were superiority and subordination, cooperation, competition, division of labour, and money transactions. These forms can be applied in a variety of different contexts to give social form to a variety of different contents or specific drives: erotic, spiritual, acquisitive, defensive, playful, etc. The emphasis on forms is why Simmel called his approach to the study of society “formal sociology.”

Simmel’s focus on how social forms emerge became very important for micro-sociology, symbolic interactionism, and the studies of hotel lobbies, cigarette girls, and street-corner societies, etc. popularized by the Chicago School in the mid-20th century. His analysis of the creation of new social forms was particularly tuned in to capturing the fragmentary everyday experience of modern social life that was bound up with the unprecedented nature and scale of the modern city. In his lifetime, the city of Berlin where he lived and taught for most of his career had become a major European metropolis of 4 million people by 1900, after the unification of Germany in the 1870s. However, his work was not confined to micro-level interactions. He developed an analysis of the tragedy of culture in which he argued that the cultural creations of “subjective culture”—like the emergent social forms created by people in their face-to-face interactions, as well as art, literature, political analyses, etc.—tended to detach themselves from lived experience and become fixed and elaborated in the form of “objective culture”—the accumulated products of human cultural creation. There are intrinsic limits to an individual’s ability to organize, appreciate, and assimilate these forms. As the quantity of objective culture increases and becomes more complex, it becomes progressively more alienating, incomprehensible, and overwhelming. It takes on a life of its own and the individual can no longer see him- or herself reflected in it. Music, for example, can be enriching, but going to an orchestral performance of contemporary music can often be baffling, as if you need an advanced music degree just to be able to understand that what you are hearing is music.

In his famous study “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” Simmel described how the built environment and the sheer size and anonymity of the city had become a social form, which he called the “metropolitan way of life.” Although the metropolis, its architecture, and the variety of ways of life it contained were products of human creation and expression, as an entity it confronted the individual as a kind of overwhelming monstrosity that threatened to swallow him or her up in its “social-technological mechanism” (Simmel 1903). As a means of self-protection against the city’s overpowering sensory input, people cut themselves off from potentially enriching contact with others and become cold, callous, indifferent, impatient, and blasé.

Making Connections: Social Policy & Debate

How do working moms impact society.

What constitutes a “typical family” in Canada has changed tremendously over the past decades. One of the most notable changes has been the increasing number of mothers who work outside the home. Earlier in Canadian society, most family households consisted of one parent working outside the home and the other being the primary child care provider. Because of traditional gender roles and family structures, this was typically a working father and a stay-at-home mom. Research shows that in 1951 only 24 percent of all women worked outside the home (Li 1996). In 2009, 58.3 percent of all women did, and 64.4 percent of women with children younger than three years of age were employed (Statistics Canada 2011).

Sociologists interested in this topic might approach its study from a variety of angles. One might be interested in its impact on a child’s development, another may explore its effect on family income, while a third might examine how other social institutions have responded to this shift in society. A sociologist studying the impact of working mothers on a child’s development might ask questions about children raised in child care settings. How is a child socialized differently when raised largely by a child care provider rather than a parent? Do early experiences in a school-like child care setting lead to improved academic performance later in life? How does a child with two working parents perceive gender roles compared to a child raised with a stay-at-home parent? Another sociologist might be interested in the increase in working mothers from an economic perspective. Why do so many households today have dual incomes? Has this changed the income of families substantially? How do women’s dual roles in the household and in the wider economy affect their occupational achievements and ability to participate on an equal basis with men in the workforce? What impact does the larger economy play in the economic conditions of an individual household? Do people view money—savings, spending, debt—differently than they have in the past?

Curiosity about this trend’s influence on social institutions might lead a researcher to explore its effect on the nation’s educational and child care systems. Has the increase in working mothers shifted traditional family responsibilities onto schools, such as providing lunch and even breakfast for students? How does the creation of after-school care programs shift resources away from traditional school programs? What would the effect be of providing a universal, subsidized child care program on the ability of women to pursue uninterrupted careers?

As these examples show, sociologists study many real-world topics. Their research often influences social policies and political issues. Results from sociological studies on this topic might play a role in developing federal policies like the Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits program, or they might bolster the efforts of an advocacy group striving to reduce social stigmas placed on stay-at-home dads, or they might help governments determine how to best allocate funding for education. Many European countries like Sweden have substantial family support policies, such as a full year of parental leave at 80 percent of wages when a child is born and heavily subsidized, high-quality daycare and preschool programs. In Canada, a national subsidized daycare program existed briefly in 2005 but was scrapped in 2006 by the Conservative government and replaced with a $100-a-month direct payment to parents for each child. Sociologists might be interested in studying whether the benefits of the Swedish system—in terms of children’s well-being, lower family poverty, and gender equality—outweigh the drawbacks of higher Swedish tax rates.

Sociologists study social events, interactions, and patterns. They then develop theories to explain why these occur and what can result from them. In sociology, a theory is a way to explain different aspects of social interactions and create testable propositions about society (Allan 2006). For example, Durkheim’s proposition that differences in suicide rate can be explained by differences in the degree of social integration in different communities is a theory.

As this brief survey of the history of sociology suggests, however, there is considerable diversity in the theoretical approaches sociology takes to studying society. Sociology is a multi-perspectival science : a number of distinct perspectives or paradigms offer competing explanations of social phenomena. Paradigms are philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the research performed in support of them. They refer to the underlying organizing principles that tie different constellations of concepts, theories, and ways of formulating problems together (Drengson 1983). Talcott Parsons’ reformulation of Durkheim’s and others work as structural functionalism in the 1950s is an example of a paradigm because it provided a general model of analysis suited to an unlimited number of research topics. Parsons proposed that any identifiable structure (e.g., roles, families, religions, or states) could be explained by the particular function it performed in maintaining the operation of society as a whole. Critical sociology and symbolic interactionism would formulate the explanatory framework and research problem differently.

The multi-perspectival approach of sociology can be confusing to the newcomer, especially given most people’s familiarity with the more “unified perspective” of the natural sciences where divisions in perspective are less visible. The natural sciences are largely able to dispense with issues of multiple perspective and build cumulative explanations based on the “facts” because the objects they study are indifferent to their observation. The chemical composition and behaviour of a protein can be assumed to be the same wherever it is observed and by whomever it is observed. The same cannot be said of social phenomena, which are mediated by meanings and interpretations, divided by politics and value orientations, subject to historical change and human agency, characterized by contradictions and reconciliations, and transfigured if they are observed at a micro or macro-level. Social reality is different , depending on the historical moment, the perspective, and the criteria from which it is viewed.

Nevertheless, the different sociological paradigms do rest on a form of knowledge that is scientific, if science is taken in the broad sense to mean the use of reasoned argument, the ability to see the general in the particular, and the reliance on evidence from systematic observation of social reality. Within this general scientific framework, however, sociology is broken into the same divisions that separate the forms of modern knowledge more generally. By the time of the Enlightenment the unified perspective of Christendom had broken into three distinct spheres of knowledge: the natural sciences, hermeneutics (or interpretive sciences), and critique (Habermas 1972). Sociology is similarly divided into three types of sociological knowledge, each with its own strengths, limitations, and practical uses:  positivist sociology , interpretive sociology , and critical sociology . Within these three types of sociological knowledge, four paradigms have come to dominate sociological thinking: structural functionalism , critical sociology , feminism ,   and symbolic interactionism .

The positivist perspective in sociology—introduced above with regard to the pioneers of the discipline August Comte and Émile Durkheim—is most closely aligned with the forms of knowledge associated with the natural sciences. The emphasis is on empirical observation and measurement (i.e., observation through the senses), value neutrality or objectivity, and the search for law-like statements about the social world (analogous to Newton’s laws of gravity for the natural world). Since mathematics and statistical operations are the main forms of logical demonstration in the natural scientific explanation, positivism relies on translating human phenomena into quantifiable units of measurement. It regards the social world as an objective or “positive” reality, in no essential respects different from the natural world. Positivism is oriented to developing a knowledge useful for controlling or administering social life, which explains its ties to the projects of social engineering going back to Comte’s original vision for sociology. Two forms of positivism have been dominant in sociology since the 1940s: quantitative sociology and structural functionalism .

Quantitative Sociology

In contemporary sociology, positivism is based on four main “rules” that define what constitutes valid knowledge and what types of questions may be reasonably asked (Bryant 1985):

• The rule of empiricism: We can only know about things that are actually given in experience. We cannot validly make claims about things that are invisible, unobservable, or supersensible like metaphysical, spiritual, or moral truths.
• The rule of value neutrality: Scientists should remain value-neutral in their research because it follows from the rule of empiricism that “values” have no empirical content that would allow their validity to be scientifically tested.
• The unity of the scientific method: All sciences have the same basic principles and practices whether their object is natural or human.
• Law-like statements: The type of explanation sought by scientific inquiry is the formulation of general laws (like the law of gravity) to explain specific phenomena (like the falling of a stone).

Much of what is referred to today as quantitative sociology fits within this paradigm of positivism. Quantitative sociology uses statistical methods such as surveys with large numbers of participants. Researchers analyze data using statistical techniques to see if they can uncover patterns of human behaviour. Law-like relationships between variables are often posed in the form of statistical relationships or multiple linear regression formulas that quantify the degree of influence different causal or independent variables have on a particular outcome (or dependent variable). For example, the degree of religiosity of an individual in Canada, measured by the frequency of church attendance or religious practice, can be predicted by a combination of different independent variables such as age, gender, income, immigrant status, and region (Bibby 2012).

Structural Functionalism

Structural Functionalism also falls within the positivist tradition in sociology due to Durkheim’s early efforts to describe the subject matter of sociology in terms of objective social facts —“social facts must be studied as things, that is, as realities external to the individual” (Durkheim 1895)—and to explain them in terms of their social functions. Durkheim argued that in order to study society, sociologists have to look beyond individuals to social facts: the laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and all of the cultural rules that govern social life (Durkheim 1895). Each of these social facts serves one or more functions within a society. For example, one function of a society’s laws may be to protect society from violence, while another is to punish criminal behaviour, while another is to preserve public health.

Following Durkheim’s insight, structural functionalism sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of individuals who make up that society. In this respect, society is like a body that relies on different organs to perform crucial functions. In fact the English philosopher and biologist Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) likened society to a human body. He argued that just as the various organs in the body work together to keep the entire system functioning and regulated, the various parts of society work together to keep the entire society functioning and regulated (Spencer 1898). By parts of society, Spencer was referring to such social institutions as the economy, political systems, health care, education, media, and religion. Spencer continued the analogy by pointing out that societies evolve just as the bodies of humans and other animals do (Maryanski and Turner 1992).

As we have seen, Émile Durkheim developed a similar analogy to explain the structure of societies and how they change and survive over time. Durkheim believed that earlier, more primitive societies were held together because most people performed similar tasks and shared values, language, and symbols. There was a low division of labour, a common religious system of social beliefs, and a low degree of individual autonomy. Society was held together on the basis of mechanical solidarity : a shared collective consciousness with harsh punishment for deviation from the norms. Modern societies, according to Durkheim, were more complex. People served many different functions in society and their ability to carry out their function depended upon others being able to carry out theirs. Modern society was held together on the basis of a division of labour or organic solidarity: a complex system of interrelated parts, working together to maintain stability, i.e., an organism (Durkheim 1893). According to this sociological paradigm, the parts of society are interdependent. The academic relies on the mechanic for the specialized skills required to fix his or her car, the mechanic sends his or her children to university to learn from the academic, and both rely on the baker to provide them with bread for their morning toast. Each part influences and relies on the others.

According to American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1881–1955), in a healthy society, all of these parts work together to produce a stable state called dynamic equilibrium (Parsons 1961). Parsons was a key figure in systematizing Durkheim’s views in the 1940s and 1950s. He argued that a sociological approach to social phenomena must emphasize the systematic nature of society at all levels of social existence: the relation of definable “structures” to their “functions” in relation to the needs or “maintenance” of the system. His AGIL schema provided a useful analytical grid for sociological theory in which an individual, an institution, or an entire society could be seen as a system composed of structures that satisfied four primary functions:

• Adaptation (A): how the system adapts to its environment
• Goal attainment (G): how the system determines what its goals are and how it will attain them
• Integration (I): how the system integrates its members into harmonious participation and social cohesion
• (Latent) Pattern Maintenance (L): how basic cultural patterns, values, belief systems, etc. are regulated and maintained

So for example, the social system as a whole relied on the economy to distribute goods and services as its means of adaptation to the natural environment; on the political system to make decisions as it means of goal attainment ; on roles and norms to regulate social behaviour as its means of social integration; and on culture to institutionalize and reproduce common values as its means of latent pattern maintenance.  Following Durkheim, he argued that these explanations of social functions had to be made at the level of systems and not involve the specific wants and needs of individuals. In a system, there is an interrelation of component parts where a change in one component affects the others regardless of the perspectives of individuals.

Another noted structural functionalist, Robert Merton (1910–2003), pointed out that social processes often have many functions. Manifest functions are the consequences of a social process that are sought or anticipated, while latent functions are the unsought consequences of a social process. A manifest function of college education, for example, includes gaining knowledge, preparing for a career, and finding a good job that utilizes that education. Latent functions of your college years include meeting new people, participating in extracurricular activities, or even finding a spouse or partner. Another latent function of education is creating a hierarchy of employment based on the level of education attained. Latent functions can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful. Social processes that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society are called dysfunctions . In education, examples of dysfunction include getting bad grades, truancy, dropping out, not graduating, and not finding suitable employment.

The main criticisms of both quantitative positivism and structural functionalism have to do with the way in which social phenomena are turned into objective social facts. On one hand, interpretive sociology suggests that the quantification of variables in quantitative sociology reduces the rich complexity and ambiguity of social life to an abstract set of numbers and statistical relationships that cannot capture the meaning it holds for individuals. Measuring someone’s depth of religious belief or “religiosity” by the number of times they attend church in a week explains very little about the religious experience. Similarly, interpretive sociology argues that structural functionalism , with its emphasis on systems of structures and functions tends to reduce the individual to the status of a sociological dupe, assuming pre-assigned roles and functions without any individual agency or capacity for self-creation.

On the other hand, critical sociology challenges the conservative tendencies of quantitative sociology and structural functionalism. Both types of positivist analysis represent themselves as being objective, or value-neutral, which is a problem in the context of critical sociology’s advocacy for social justice. However, both types of positivism also have conservative assumptions built into their basic approach to social facts. The focus in quantitative sociology on observable facts and law-like statements presents a historical and deterministic picture of the world that cannot account for the underlying historical dynamics of power relationships and class or other contradictions. One can empirically observe the trees but not the forest so to speak. Similarly, the focus on the needs and the smooth functioning of social systems in structural functionalism supports a conservative viewpoint because it tends to see the functioning and dynamic equilibrium of society as good or normal, whereas change is pathological. In Davis and Moore’s famous essay “Some Principles of Stratification” (1944) for example, the authos argued that social inequality was essentially “good” because it functioned to preserve the motivation of individuals to work hard to get ahead. Critical sociology challenges both the justice and practical consequences of social inequality.

Table 1.1. Sociological Theories or Perspectives. Different sociological perspectives enable sociologists to view social issues through a variety of useful lenses.

Interpretive Sociology

The interpretive perspective in sociology is aligned with the hermeneutic traditions of the humanities like literature, philosophy, and history. The focus is on understanding or interpreting human activity in terms of the meanings that humans attribute to it. Max Weber’s Verstehende (understanding) sociology is often cited as the origin of this perspective in sociology because of his emphasis on the centrality of meaning and intention in social action:

Sociology… is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its course and effects. In “action” is included all human behaviour when and in so far as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it…. [Social action is] action mutually oriented to that of each other (Weber 1922).

This emphasis on the meaningfulness of social action is taken up later by phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and symbolic interactionism. The interpretive perspective is concerned with developing a knowledge of social interaction as a meaning-oriented practice. It promotes the goal of greater mutual understanding and the possibility of consensus among members of society.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism provides a theoretical perspective that helps scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society. This perspective is centred on the notion that communication—or the exchange of meaning through language and symbols—is how people make sense of their social worlds. As pointed out by Herman and Reynolds (1994), this viewpoint sees people as active in shaping their world, rather than as entities who are acted upon by society (Herman and Reynolds 1994). This approach looks at society and people from a micro-level perspective.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered one of the founders of symbolic interactionism. His work in Mind, Self and Society (1934) on the “self” as a social structure and on the stages of child development as a sequence of role-playing capacities provides the classic analyses of the perspective.

His student Herbert Blumer (1900–1987) synthesized Mead’s work and popularized the theory. Blumer coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and identified its three basic premises:

• Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things.
• The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society.
• These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he or she encounters (Blumer 1969).

In other words, human interaction is not determined in the same manner as natural events. Nor do people directly react to each other as forces acting upon forces or as stimuli provoking automatic responses. Rather people interact indirectly , by interpreting the meaning of each other’s actions, gestures, or words. Interaction is symbolic in the sense that it occurs through the mediation, exchange, and interpretation of symbols. One person’s action refers beyond itself to a meaning that calls out for the response of the other: it indicates what the receiver is supposed to do; it indicates what the actor intends to do; and together they form a mutual definition of the situation, which enables joint action to take place. Social life can be seen as the stringing together or aligning of multiple joint actions.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-one interactions. For example, while a structural functionalist studying a political protest might focus on the function protest plays in realigning the priorities of the political system, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested in seeing the ways in which individuals in the protesting group interact, or how the signs and symbols protesters use enable a common definition of the situation—e.g., an environmental or social justice “issue”—to get established.

The focus on the importance of symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to develop a framework called dramaturgical analysis . Goffman used theatre as an analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed patterns of cultural “scripts.” In social encounters, individuals make a claim for a positive social status within the group—they present a “face”—but it is never certain that their audience will accept their claim. There is always the possibility that individuals will make a gaff that prevents them from successfully maintaining face. They have to manage the impression they are making in the same way and often using the same type of “props” as an actor. Moreover, because it can be unclear what part a person may play in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds. This led to Goffman’s focus on the ritual nature of social interaction—the way in which the “scripts” of social encounters become routine, repetitive, and unconscious. Nevertheless, the emphasis in Goffman’s analysis, as in symbolic interactionism as a whole, is that the social encounter, and social reality itself, is open and unpredictable. Social reality is not predetermined by structures, functions, roles, or history (Goffman 1958).

Symbolic interactionism has also been important in bringing to light the experiences and worlds of individuals who are typically excluded from official accounts of the world. Howard Becker’s Outsiders (1963) for example described the process of labelling in which individuals come to be characterized or labelled as deviants by authorities. The sequence of events in which a young person is picked up by police for an offence, defined as a “young offender,” processed by the criminal justice system, and then introduced to the criminal subculture through contact with experienced convicts is told from the subjective point of view of the young person. The significance of labelling theory is to show that individuals are not born deviant or criminal, but become criminal through an institutionalized symbolic interaction with authorities. As Becker says:

… social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance , and by applying those roles to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behaviour that people so label (1963).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research subjects live.

Research done from this perspective is often scrutinized because of the difficulty of remaining objective. Others criticize the extremely narrow focus on symbolic interaction. Proponents, of course, consider this one of its greatest strengths.

One of the problems of sociology that focuses on micro-level interactions is that it is difficult to generalize from very specific situations, involving very few individuals, to make social scientific claims about the nature of society as a whole. The danger is that, while the rich texture of face-to-face social life can be examined in detail, the results will remain purely descriptive without any explanatory or analytical strength. In a similar fashion, it is very difficult to get at the historical context or relations of power that structure or condition face-to-face symbolic interactions. The perspective on social life as an unstructured and unconstrained domain of agency and subjective meanings has difficulty accounting for the ways that social life does become structured and constrained.

Making Connections: The Big Picture

A global culture.

Sociologists around the world are looking closely for signs of what would be an unprecedented event: the emergence of a global culture. In the past, empires such as those that existed in China, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America linked people from many different countries, but those people rarely became part of a common culture. They lived too far from each other, spoke different languages, practised different religions, and traded few goods. Today, increases in communication, travel, and trade have made the world a much smaller place. More and more people are able to communicate with each other instantly—wherever they are located—by telephone, video, and text. They share movies, television shows, music, games, and information over the internet. Students can study with teachers and pupils from the other side of the globe. Governments find it harder to hide conditions inside their countries from the rest of the world.

Sociologists are researching many different aspects of this potential global culture. Some are exploring the dynamics involved in the social interactions of global online communities, such as when members feel a closer kinship to other group members than to people residing in their own country. Other sociologists are studying the impact this growing international culture has on smaller, less-powerful local cultures. Yet other researchers are exploring how international markets and the outsourcing of labour impact social inequalities. Sociology can play a key role in people’s ability to understand the nature of this emerging global culture and how to respond to it.

Critical Sociology

The critical perspective in sociology has its origins in social activism, social justice movements, revolutionary struggles, and radical critique. As Karl Marx put it, its focus was the “ruthless critique of everything existing” (Marx 1843). The key elements of this analysis are the emphases on power relations and the understanding of society as historical—subject to change, struggle, contradiction, instability, social movement and radical transformation. Rather than objectivity and value neutrality, the tradition of critical sociology promotes practices of liberation and social change in order to achieve universal social justice. As Marx stated, “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (1845). This is why it is misleading to call critical sociology “conflict theory” as some introductory textbooks do. While conflict is certainly central to the critical analyses of power and domination, the focus of critical sociology is on developing types of knowledge and political action that enable emancipation from power relations (i.e., from the conditions of conflict in society). Historical materialism, feminism, environmentalism, anti-racism, queer studies, and poststructuralism are all examples of the critical perspective in sociology.

One of the outcomes of a systematic analysis such as these is that it generates questions about the relationship between our everyday life and issues concerning social justice and environmental sustainability. In line with the philosophical traditions of the Enlightenment, critical sociology is sociology with an “emancipatory interest” (Habermas 1972); that is, a sociology that seeks not simply to understand or describe the world, but to use sociological knowledge to change and improve the world, to emancipate people from conditions of servitude. What does the word critical mean in this context? Critical sociologists argue that it is important to understand that the critical tradition in sociology is not about complaining or being “negative.” Nor is it about adopting a moral position from which to judge people or society. It is not about being “subjective” or “biased” as opposed to “objective.” As Herbert Marcuse put it in One Dimensional Man (1964), critical sociology involves two value judgments:

• The judgment that human life is worth living, or rather that it can be and ought to be made worth living
• The judgment that, in a given society, specific possibilities exist for the amelioration of human life and specific ways and means of realizing these possibilities

Critical sociology therefore rejects the notion of a value-free social science, but does not thereby become a moral exercise or an individual “subjective” value preference as a result. Being critical in the context of sociology is about using objective, empirical knowledge to assess the possibilities and barriers to improving or “ameliorating” human life.

Historical Materialism

The tradition of historical materialism that developed from Karl Marx’s work is one of the central frameworks of critical sociology. As we noted in the discussion of Marx above, historical materialism concentrates on the study of how our everyday lives are structured by the connection between relations of power and economic processes. The basis of this approach begins with the macro-level question of how specific relations of power and specific economic formations have developed historically. These form the context in which the institutions, practices, beliefs, and social rules (norms) of everyday life are situated. The elements that make up a culture—a society’s shared practices, values, beliefs, and artifacts—are structured by the society’s economic mode of production : the way human societies act upon their environment and its resources in order to use them to meet their needs. Hunter-gatherer, agrarian, feudal, and capitalist modes of production have been the economic basis for very different types of society throughout world history.

It is not as if this relationship is always clear to the people living in these different periods of history, however. Often the mechanisms and structures of social life are obscure. For example, it might not have been clear to the Scots who were expelled from their ancestral lands in Scotland during the Highland clearances of the 18th and 19th centuries and who emigrated to the Red River settlements in Rupert’s Land (now Manitoba) that they were living through the epochal transformation from feudalism to capitalism. This transition was nevertheless the context for the decisions individuals and families made to emigrate from Scotland and attempt to found the Red River Colony. It might also not have been clear to them that they were participating in the development of colonial power relationships between the indigenous people of North America and the Europeans that persist up until today. Through contact with the Scots and the French fur traders, the Cree and Anishinabe were gradually drawn out of their own indigenous modes of production and into the developing global capitalist economy as fur trappers and provisioners for the early European settlements. It was a process that eventually led to the loss of control over their lands, the destruction of their way of life, the devastating spread of European diseases, the imposition of the Indian Act, the establishment of the residential school system, institutional and everyday racism, and an enduring legacy of intractable social problems.

In a similar way, historical materialism analyzes the constraints that define the way individuals review their options and make their decisions in present-day society. From the types of career to pursue to the number of children to have, the decisions and practices of everyday life must be understood in terms of the 20th century shift to corporate ownership and the 21st century context of globalization in which corporate decisions about investments are made.

The historical materialist approach emphasizes three components (Naiman 2012). The first is that everything in society is related—it is not possible to study social processes in isolation. The second is that everything in society is dynamic (i.e., in a process of continuous social change). It is not possible to study social processes as if they existed outside of history. The third is that the tensions that form around relationships of power and inequality in society are the key drivers of social change. In the language of Marx, these tensions are based on “contradictions” built into the organization of the economic or material relationships that structure our livelihoods, our relationships to each other, our relationship to the environment, and our place within the global community. It is not possible to study social processes as if they were independent of the historical formations of power that both structure them and destabilize them.

Another major school of critical sociology is feminism. From the early work of women sociologists like Harriet Martineau, feminist sociology has focused on the power relationships and inequalities between women and men. How can the conditions of inequality faced by women be addressed? As Harriet Martineau put it in Society in America (1837):

All women should inform themselves of the condition of their sex, and of their own position. It must necessarily follow that the noblest of them will, sooner or later, put forth a moral power which shall prostrate cant [hypocracy], and burst asunder the bonds (silken to some but cold iron to others) of feudal prejudice and usages. In the meantime is it to be understood that the principles of the Declaration of Independence bear no relation to half of the human race? If so, what is the ground of this limitation?

Feminist sociology focuses on analyzing the grounds of the limitations faced by women when they claim the right to equality with men.

Inequality between the genders is a phenomenon that goes back at least 4,000 years (Lerner 1986). Although the forms and ways in which it has been practised differ between cultures and change significantly through history, its persistence has led to the formulation of the concept of patriarchy. Patriarchy refers to a set of institutional structures (like property rights, access to positions of power, relationship to sources of income) that are based on the belief that men and women are dichotomous and unequal categories. Key to patriarchy is what might be called the dominant gender ideology toward sexual differences: the assumption that physiological sex differences between males and females are related to differences in their character, behaviour, and ability (i.e., their gender). These differences are used to justify a gendered division of social roles and inequality in access to rewards, positions of power, and privilege. The question that feminists ask therefore is: How does this distinction between male and female, and the attribution of different qualities to each, serve to organize our institutions (e.g., the family, law, the occupational structure, religious institutions, the division between public and private) and to perpetuate inequality between the sexes?

Feminism is a distinct type of critical sociology. There are considerable differences between types of feminism, however; for example, the differences often attributed to the first wave of feminism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the second wave of feminism from the 1950s to the 1970s, and the third wave of feminism from the 1980s onward. Despite the variations between different types of feminist approach, there are four characteristics that are common to the feminist perspective:

• Gender is a central focus or subject matter of the perspective.
• Gender relations are viewed as a problem: the site of social inequities, strains, and contradictions.
• Gender relations are not immutable: they are sociological and historical in nature, subject to change and progress.
• Feminism is about an emancipatory commitment to change: the conditions of life that are oppressive for women need to be transformed.

One of the keen sociological insights that emerged with the feminist perspective in sociology is that “the personal is political.” Many of the most immediate and fundamental experiences of social life—from childbirth to who washes the dishes to the experience of sexual violence—had simply been invisible or regarded as unimportant politically or socially. Dorothy Smith’s development of standpoint theory was a key innovation in sociology that enabled these issues to be seen and addressed in a systematic way (Smith 1977). She recognized from the consciousness-raising exercises and encounter groups initiated by feminists in the 1960s and1970s that many of the immediate concerns expressed by women about their personal lives had a commonality of themes. These themes were nevertheless difficult to articulate in sociological terms let alone in the language of politics or law.

Part of the issue was sociology itself. Smith argued that instead of beginning sociological analysis from the abstract point of view of institutions or systems, women’s lives could be more effectively examined if one began from the “actualities” of their lived experience in the immediate local settings of “everyday/everynight” life. She asked, What are the common features of women’s everyday lives? From this standpoint, Smith observed that women’s position in modern society is acutely divided by the experience of dual consciousness . Every day women crossed a tangible dividing line when they went from the “particularizing work in relation to children, spouse, and household” to the institutional world of text-mediated, abstract concerns at work, or in their dealings with schools, medical systems, or government bureaucracies. In the abstract world of institutional life, the actualities of local consciousness and lived life are “obliterated” (Smith 1977). While the standpoint of women is grounded in bodily, localized, “here and now” relationships between people, due to their obligations in the domestic sphere, society is organized through “relations of ruling,” which translate the substance of actual lived experiences into abstract bureaucratic categories. Power and rule in society, especially the power and rule that constrain and coordinate the lives of women, operate through a problematic “move into transcendence” that provides accounts of social life as if it were possible to stand outside of it. Smith argued that the abstract concepts of sociology, at least in the way that it was taught at the time, only contributed to the problem.

Whereas critical sociologists often criticize positivist and interpretive sociology for their conservative biases, the reverse is also true. In part the issue is about whether sociology can be “objective,” or value-neutral, or not. However, at a deeper level the criticism is often aimed at the radical nature of critical analyses. Marx’s critique of capitalism and the feminist critique of patriarchy for example led to very interesting insights into how structures of power and inequality work, but from a point of view that sees only the most revolutionary transformation of society as a solution.

Critical sociology is also criticized from the point of view of interpretive sociology for overstating the power of dominant groups to manipulate subordinate groups. For example, media representations of women are said to promote unobtainable standards of beauty or to reduce women to objects of male desire. This type of critique suggests that individuals are controlled by media images rather than recognizing their independent ability to reject media influences or to interpret media images for themselves. In a similar way, critical sociology is criticized for implying that people are purely the products of macro-level historical forces rather than individuals with a capacity for individual and collective agency. To be fair, Marx did argue that “Men make their own history;” it is just that they “do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances encountered, given, and transmitted from the past” (Marx 1851).

Farming and Locavores: How Sociological Perspectives Might View Food Consumption

The consumption of food is a commonplace, daily occurrence, yet it can also be associated with important moments in our lives. Eating can be an individual or a group action, and eating habits and customs are influenced by our cultures. In the context of society, our nation’s food system is at the core of numerous social movements, political issues, and economic debates. Any of these factors might become a topic of sociological study.

A structural-functional approach to the topic of food consumption might be interested in the role of the agriculture industry within the nation’s economy and how this has changed from the early days of manual-labour farming to modern mechanized production. Food production is a primary example of how human systems adapt to environmental systems. In many respects the concerns of environmentalists and others with respect to the destructive relationship between industrial agriculture and the ecosystem are the results of a dysfunctional system of adaptation. The concept of sustainable agriculture points to the changes needed to return the interface between humans and the natural environment to a state of dynamic equilibrium.

A sociologist viewing food consumption through a symbolic interactionist lens would be more interested in micro-level topics, such as the symbolic use of food in religious rituals, or the role it plays in the social interaction of a family dinner. This perspective might also study the interactions among group members who identify themselves based on their sharing a particular diet, such as vegetarians (people who don’t eat meat) or locavores (people who strive to eat locally produced food). The increasing concern that people have with their diets speaks to the way that the life of the biological body is as much a symbolic reality, interpreted within contemporary discourses on health risks and beauty, as it is a biological reality.

A critical sociologist might be interested in the power differentials present in the regulation of food, exploring where people’s right to information intersects with corporations’ drive for profit and how the government mediates those interests. Or a critical sociologist might be interested in the power and powerlessness experienced by local farmers versus large farming conglomerates. In the documentary Food Inc., the plight of farmers resulting from Monsanto’s patenting of seed technology is depicted as a product of the corporatization of the food industry. Another topic of study might be how nutrition varies between different social classes.

When Bernard Blishen picked up the phone one day in 1961, he was surprised to hear Chief Justice Emmett Hall on the other end of the line asking him to be the research director for the newly established Royal Commission on Health Services. Publically funded health care had been introduced for the first time in Canada that year by a socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) government in Saskatchewan amid bitter controversy. Doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike and private health care insurers mounted an expensive anti-public health care campaign. Because it was a Conservative government commission, appointed by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Blishen’s colleagues advised him that it was going to be a whitewash document to defend the interests of private medical care. However, Blishen took on the project as a challenge, and when the commission’s report was published it advocated that the Saskatchewan plan be adopted nationally (Vaughan 2004).

Blishen went on to work in the field of medical sociology and also created a widely used index to measure socioeconomic status known as the Blishen scale. He received the Order of Canada in 2011 in recognition of his contributions to the creation of public health care in Canada.

Since it was first founded, many people interested in sociology have been driven by the scholarly desire to contribute knowledge to this field, while others have seen it as way not only to study society, but also to improve it. Besides the creation of public health care in Canada, sociology has played a crucial role in many important social reforms such as equal opportunity for women in the workplace, improved treatment for individuals with mental and learning disabilities, increased recognition and accommodation for people from different ethnic backgrounds, the creation of hate crime legislation, the right of aboriginal populations to preserve their land and culture, and prison system reforms.

The prominent sociologist Peter L. Berger (1929– ), in his 1963 book Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective , describes a sociologist as “someone concerned with understanding society in a disciplined way.” He asserts that sociologists have a natural interest in the monumental moments of people’s lives, as well as a fascination with banal, everyday occurrences. Berger also describes the “aha” moment when a sociological theory becomes applicable and understood:

[T]here is a deceptive simplicity and obviousness about some sociological investigations. One reads them, nods at the familiar scene, remarks that one has heard all this before and don’t people have better things to do than to waste their time on truisms—until one is suddenly brought up against an insight that radically questions everything one had previously assumed about this familiar scene. This is the point at which one begins to sense the excitement of sociology (Berger 1963).

Sociology can be exciting because it teaches people ways to recognize how they fit into the world and how others perceive them. Looking at themselves and society from a sociological perspective helps people see where they connect to different groups based on the many different ways they classify themselves and how society classifies them in turn. It raises awareness of how those classifications—such as economic and status levels, education, ethnicity, or sexual orientation—affect perceptions.

Sociology teaches people not to accept easy explanations. It teaches them a way to organize their thinking so that they can ask better questions and formulate better answers. It makes people more aware that there are many different kinds of people in the world who do not necessarily think the way they do. It increases their willingness and ability to try to see the world from other people’s perspectives. This prepares them to live and work in an increasingly diverse and integrated world.

Sociology in the Workplace

Employers continue to seek people with what are called “transferable skills.” This means that they want to hire people whose knowledge and education can be applied in a variety of settings and whose skills will contribute to various tasks. Studying sociology can provide people with this wide knowledge and a skill set that can contribute to many workplaces, including:

• An understanding of social systems and large bureaucracies
• The ability to devise and carry out research projects to assess whether a program or policy is working
• The ability to collect, read, and analyze statistical information from polls or surveys
• The ability to recognize important differences in people’s social, cultural, and economic backgrounds
• Skills in preparing reports and communicating complex ideas
• The capacity for critical thinking about social issues and problems that confront modern society (Department of Sociology, University of Alabama)

Sociology prepares people for a wide variety of careers. Besides actually conducting social research or training others in the field, people who graduate from college with a degree in sociology are hired by government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations in fields such as social services, counselling (e.g., family planning, career, substance abuse), designing and evaluating social policies and programs, health services, polling and independent research, market research, and human resources management. Even a small amount of training in sociology can be an asset in careers like sales, public relations, journalism, teaching, law, and criminal justice.

Please “Friend” Me: Students and Social Networking

The phenomenon known as Facebook was designed specifically for students. Whereas earlier generations wrote notes in each other’s printed yearbooks at the end of the academic year, modern technology and the internet ushered in dynamic new ways for people to interact socially. Instead of having to meet up on campus, students can call, text, and Skype from their dorm rooms. Instead of a study group gathering weekly in the library, online forums and chat rooms help learners connect. The availability and immediacy of computer technology has forever changed the ways students engage with each other.

Now, after several social networks have vied for primacy, a few have established their place in the market and some have attracted niche audience. While Facebook launched the social networking trend geared toward teens and young adults, now people of all ages are actively “friending” each other. LinkedIn distinguished itself by focusing on professional connections, serving as a virtual world for workplace networking. Newer offshoots like Foursquare help people connect based on the real-world places they frequent, while Twitter has cornered the market on brevity.

These newer modes of social interaction have also spawned questionable consequences, such as cyberbullying and what some call FAD, or Facebook addiction disorder. In an international study of smartphone users aged 18 to 30, 60 percent say they are “compulsive” about checking their smartphones and 42 percent admit to feeling “anxious” when disconnected; 75 percent check their smartphones in bed; more than 33 percent check them in the bathroom and 46 percent email and check social media while eating (Cisco 2012). An International Data Corporation (IDC) study of 7,446 smartphone users aged 18 to 44 in the United States in 2012 found that:

• Half of the U.S. population have smartphones and of those 70 percent use Facebook. Using Facebook is the third most common smartphone activity, behind email (78 percent) and web browsing (73 percent).
• 61 percent of smartphone users check Facebook every day.
• 62 percent of smartphone users check their device first thing on waking up in the morning and 79 percent check within 15 minutes. Among 18-to-24-year-olds the figures are 74 percent and 89 percent, respectively.
• Smartphone users check Facebook approximately 14 times a day.
• 84 percent of the time using smartphones is spent on texting, emailing and using social media like Facebook, whereas only 16 percent of the time is spent on phone calls. People spend an average of 132 minutes a day on their smartphones including 33 minutes on Facebook.
• People use Facebook throughout the day, even in places where they are not supposed to: 46 percent use Facebook while doing errands and shopping; 47 percent when they are eating out; 48 percent while working out; 46 percent in meetings or class; and 50 percent while at the movies.

The study noted that the dominant feeling the survey group reported was “a sense of feeling connected” (IDC 2012). Yet, in the international study cited above, two-thirds of 18- to 30-year-old smartphone users said they spend more time with friends online than they do in person.

All of these social networks demonstrate emerging ways that people interact, whether positive or negative. Sociologists ask whether there might be long-term effects of replacing face-to-face interaction with social media. In an interview on the Conan O’Brian Show that ironically circulated widely through social media, the comedian Louis CK described the use of smartphones as “toxic.” They do not allow for children who use them to build skills of empathy because the children do not interact face to face, or see the effects their comments have on others. Moreover, he argues, they do not allow people to be alone with their feelings. “The thing is, you need to build an ability to just be yourself and not be doing something. That’s what the phones are taking away” (NewsComAu 2013). What do you think? How do social media like Facebook and communication technologies like smartphones change the way we communicate? How could this question be studied?

AGIL schema Talcott Parsons’ division of society into four functional requisites: A daptation, G oal attainment, I ntegration, and L atent pattern maintenance

anomie a social condition or normlessness in which a lack of clear norms fails to give direction and purpose to individual actions

capitalism an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership and production of goods and their sale in a competitive market

content the specific reasons or drives that motivate individuals to interact

critical sociology a theoretical perspective that focuses on inequality and power relations in society in order to achieve social justice and emancipation through their transformation

culture  includes the group’s shared practices, values, beliefs, norms and artifacts

disenchantment of the world the replacement of magical thinking by technological rationality and calculation

dominant gender ideology  the belief that physiological sex differences between males and females are related to differences in their character, behaviour, and ability

dramaturgical analysis a technique sociologists use in which they view society through the metaphor of theatrical performance

dual consciousness the experience of a fissure or dividing point in everyday life where one crosses a line between irreconcilable forms of consciousness or perspective

dynamic equilibrium a stable state in which all parts of a healthy society are working together properly

dysfunctions social patterns that have undesirable consequences for the operation of society

feminism the critical analysis of the way gender differences in society structure social inequality

figuration the process of simultaneously analyzing the behaviour of an individual and the society that shapes that behaviour

formal sociology a sociology that analytically separates the contents from the forms of social interaction to study the common forms that guide human behaviour

function  the part a recurrent activity plays in the social life as a whole and the contribution it makes to structural continuity

functionalism (functionalist perspective) a theoretical approach that sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of individuals that make up that society

historical materialism an approach to understanding society that explains social change, human ideas, and social organization in terms of underlying changes in the economic (or material) structure of society

idealism an approach to understanding society that emphasizes that the nature of society and social change is determined by a society’s ideas, knowledge, and beliefs

idealist one who believes in idealism

interpretive sociology a perspective that explains human behaviour in terms of the meanings individuals attribute to it

labelling a social process in which an individual’s social identity is established through the imposition of a definition by authorities

latent functions the unrecognized or unintended consequences of a social process

law of three stages the three stages of evolution that societies develop through: theological, metaphysical, and positive

macro-sociology a wide-scale view of the role of social structures within a society

manifest functions sought consequences of a social process

mechanical solidarity social solidarity or cohesion through a shared collective consciousness with harsh punishment for deviation from the norms

metaphysical stage a stage of social evolution in which people explain events in terms of abstract or speculative ideas

micro-sociology the study of specific relationships between individuals or small groups

mode of production the way human societies act upon their environment and its resources in order to use them to meet their needs

multi-perspectival science a science that is divided into competing or diverse paradigms

organic solidarity social solidarity or cohesion through a complex division of labour and restitutive law

paradigms philosophical and theoretical frameworks used within a discipline to formulate theories, generalizations, and the experiments performed in support of them

patriarchy institutions of male power in society

positive stage a stage of social evolution in which people explain events in terms of scientific principles and laws

positivism (positivist perspective or positivist sociology) the scientific study of social patterns based on methodological principles of the natural sciences

Protestant ethic the duty to work hard in one’s calling

quantitative sociology statistical methods such as surveys with large numbers of participants

rationalization the general tendency of modern institutions and most areas of life to be transformed by the application of instrumental reason

reification referring to abstract concepts, complex processes or mutable social relationships as “things”

social action actions to which individuals attach subjective meanings

social facts the external laws, morals, values, religious beliefs, customs, fashions, rituals, and cultural rules that govern social life

social reform an approach to social change that advocates slow, incremental improvements in social institutions rather than rapid, revolutionary change of society as a whole

social solidarity the social ties that bind a group of people together such as kinship, shared location, and religion

society  is a group of people whose members interact, reside in a definable area, and share a culture

sociological imagination the ability to understand how your own unique circumstances relate to that of other people, as well as to history in general and societal structures in particular

sociology the systematic study of society and social interaction

standpoint theory the examination of how society is organized and coordinated from the perspective of a particular social location or perspective in society

structural functionalism see functionalism

symbolic interactionism a theoretical perspective through which scholars examine the relationship of individuals within their society by studying their communication (language and symbols)

theological stage a stage of social evolution in which people explain events with respect to the will of God or gods

theory a proposed explanation about social interactions or society

tragedy of culture the tendency for the products of human cultural creation to accumulate and become increasingly complex, specialized, alienating, or oppressive

Verstehen German for “understanding”; in sociology it refers to the use of empathy, or putting oneself in another’s place, to understand the motives and logic of another’s action

Section Summary

1.1. What Is Sociology? Sociology is the systematic study of society and social interaction. In order to carry out their studies, sociologists identify cultural patterns and social forces and determine how they affect individuals and groups. They also develop ways to apply their findings to the real world.

1.2. The History of Sociology Sociology was developed as a way to study and try to understand the changes to society brought on by the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. Some of the earliest sociologists thought that societies and individuals’ roles in society could be studied using the same scientific methodologies that were used in the natural sciences, while others believed that is was impossible to predict human behaviour scientifically, and still others debated the value of such predictions. Those perspectives continue to be represented within sociology today.

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives Sociologists develop theories to explain social events, interactions, and patterns. A theory is a proposed explanation of those patterns. Theories have different scales. Macro-level theories, such as structural functionalism and conflict theory, attempt to explain how societies operate as a whole. Micro-level theories, such as symbolic interactionism, focus on interactions between individuals.

1.4. Why Study Sociology? Studying sociology is beneficial both for the individual and for society. By studying sociology people learn how to think critically about social issues and problems that confront our society. The study of sociology enriches students’ lives and prepares them for careers in an increasingly diverse world. Society benefits because people with sociological training are better prepared to make informed decisions about social issues and take effective action to deal with them.

Section Quiz

1.1. What Is Sociology? 1. Which of the following best describes sociology as a subject?

• the study of individual behaviour
• the study of cultures
• the study of society and social interaction
• the study of economics

2. Wright Mills once said that sociologists need to develop a sociological __________ to study how society affects individuals.

• imagination

3. A sociologist defines society as a group of people who reside in a defined area, share a culture, and who:

• work in the same industry
• speak different languages
• practise a recognized religion

4. Seeing patterns means that a sociologist needs to be able to:

• compare the behaviour of individuals from different societies
• compare one society to another
• identify similarities in how social groups respond to social pressure
• compare individuals to groups

1.2. The History of Sociology 5. Which of the following was a topic of study in early sociology?

6. Which founder of sociology believed societies changed due to class struggle?

• Émile Comte
• Herbert Spencer

7. The difference between positivism and interpretive sociology relates to:

• whether individuals like or dislike their society
• whether research methods use statistical data or person-to-person research
• whether sociological studies can predict or improve society
• all of the above

8. Which would a quantitative sociologists use to gather data?

• a large survey
• a literature search
• an in-depth interview
• a review of television programs

9. Weber believed humans could not be studied purely objectively because they were influenced by:

• their culture
• their genetic makeup
• the researcher

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives 10. Which of these theories is most likely to look at the social world on a micro-level?

• structural functionalism
• conflict theory
• symbolic interactionism

11. Who believed that the history of society was one of class struggle?

• Émile Durkheim
• Erving Goffmann
• George Herbert Mead

12. Who coined the phrase symbolic interactionism?

• Herbert Blumer
• Lester F. Ward
• W. I. Thomas

13. A symbolic interactionist may compare social interactions to:

• human organs
• theatrical roles

14. Which research technique would most likely be used by a symbolic interactionist?

• participant observation
• quantitative data analysis
• none of the above

15. Which sociologist described sociology as the study of social forms?

1.4. Why Study Sociology? 16. Studying Sociology helps people analyze data because they learn:

• interview techniques
• to apply statistics
• to generate theories

17. Berger describes sociologists as concerned with:

• monumental moments in people’s lives
• common everyday life events
• both a and b

Short Answer

• What do you think C. Wright Mills meant when he said that to be a sociologist, one had to develop a sociological imagination?
• Describe a situation in which a choice you made was influenced by societal pressures.
• What do you make of Karl Marx’s contributions to sociology? What perceptions of Marx have you been exposed to in your society, and how do those perceptions influence your views?
• Do you tend to place more value on qualitative or quantitative research? Why? Does it matter what topic is being studied?
• Which theory do you think better explains how societies operate—structural functionalism or conflict theory? Why?
• Do you think the way people behave in social interactions is more due to the cause and effect of external social constraints or more like actors playing a role in a theatrical production? Why?
• How do you think taking a sociology course might affect your social interactions?
• What sort of career are you interested in? How could studying sociology help you in this career?

Further Research

1.1. What Is Sociology? Sociology is a broad discipline. Different kinds of sociologists employ various methods for exploring the relationship between individuals and society. Check out more about sociology at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/what-is-sociology .

1.2. The History of Sociology Many sociologists helped shape the discipline. To learn more about prominent sociologists and how they changed sociology check out http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ferdinand-toennies .

1.3. Theoretical Perspectives People often think of all conflict as violent, but many conflicts can be resolved nonviolently. To learn more about nonviolent methods of conflict resolution check out the Albert Einstein Institution http://openstaxcollege.org/l/ae-institution

1.4. Why Study Sociology? Social communication is rapidly evolving due to ever improving technologies. To learn more about how sociologists study the impact of these changes check out http://openstaxcollege.org/l/media

1.1. What Is Sociology? CBC. 2010. “Part 3: Former Gang Members,”  The Current , CBC Radio. September 14. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/09/september-14-2010.html

Durkheim, Émile. 1951 [1897]. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press.

Elias, Norbert. 1978. What Is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.

Mills, C. Wright. 2000 [1959]. The Sociological Imagination . 40th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Office of the Correctional Investigator. 2013. “Backgrounder: Aboriginal Offenders—A Critical Situation.” Government of Canada . Retrieved February 24, 2014  from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspx

Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. NY: Penguin Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1908]. “The problem of sociology.” Pp. 23–27 in   Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms , edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, Dorothy. 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Statistics Canada. 2013. “Overweight and obese adults (self-reported), 2012.” Statistics Canada Health Fact Sheets. Catalogue 82-625-XWE. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2013001/article/11840-eng.htm

Becker, Howard and Harry Barnes. 1961. Social Thought from Lore to Science (Volume 1). New York: Dover Publications.

Collins, Randall and Michael Makowsky. 1989. The Discovery of Society.   New York: Random House.

Comte, August. 1975 [1830]. “The Nature and Importance of the Positive Philosophy.” In  Auguste Comte and positivism : the essential writings , edited by  Gertrud Lenzer. NY: Harper and Row.

Durkheim, Émile. 1964 [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method , 8th ed., edited by J. Mueller, E. George and E. Caitlin. Translated by S. Solovay. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Émile 1997 [1895]. “The Rules of Sociological Method.” Pp. 207–211 in Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by Ian McIntosh.   New York: New York University Press.

Durkheim, Émile 1997 [1897]. “Suicide: A Study in Sociology.” Pp. 212–231 in  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by    Ian McIntosh. New York: New York University Press.

Durkheim, Émile 1997 [1912]. “Religion and Society.” Pp. 232–247 in  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by  Ian McIntosh. New York:    New York University Press.

Fauré, Christine, Jacques Guilhaumou, Jacques Vallier, and Françoise Weil. 2007 [1999]. Des Manuscrits de Sieyès, 1773–1799 , Volumes I and II. Paris: Champion.

Lengermann, Patricia and Jill Niebrugge. 2007. The Women Founders: Sociology and Social Theory, 1830–1930.  Longrove, Ill: Waveland Press.

Li, Peter. 1996. The Making of Post-War Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy . Hamburg: Otto Meissner Verlag.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1977  [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. Pp. 221–247 in  Karl Marx: Selected Writings,  edited by  David McLellan. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

McDonald, Lynn. 1998. Women Theorists on Society and Politics. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1908]. “The problem of sociology.” Pp. 23–27  in  Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms , edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1971 [1910]. “Sociability.” Pp. 127–140  in Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms, edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simmel, Georg. (1971[1903]). “Metropolis and Mental Life.” Pp. 324–339  in  Georg Simmel: On individuality and social forms , edited by D. Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Statistics Canada. 2011 Women in Canada: A Gender Based Statistical Report. (Catalogue no. 89-503-X). Retrieved January 31, 2014  from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/89-503-x2010001-eng.pdf

Weber, Max. 1958 [1904]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Weber, Max. 1969 [1919]. “Science as a Vocation.” Pp. 129-158 in  From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology , edited by  H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills.   NY: Oxford University Press.

Weber, Max. 1997 [1922]. “Definitions of Sociology and Social Action.” Pp 157–164  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader , edited by Ian McIntosh. NY: New York University Press.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. 1792. A Vindication of the Rights of Women with Strictures on Moral and Political Subjects. London: Joseph Johnson.

Zeitlin, Irving. 1997.  Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory.  Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Allan, Kenneth. 2006. Contemporary Social and Sociological Theory: Visualizing Social Worlds . Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders : Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Macmillan.

Bibby, Reginald. 2012. A New Day: The Resilience & Restructuring of Religion in Canada. Lethbridge: Project Canada Books

Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bryant, Christopher. 1985. Positivism in Social Theory and Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert Moore. 1944. “Some Principles of Stratification.” Americam Sociological Review. 10(2):242–249.

Drengson, Alan. 1983. Shifting Paradigms: From Technocrat to Planetary Person. Victoria, BC: Light Star Press.

Durkheim, Émile. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society . New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Émile. 1964 [1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method , edited by J. Mueller, E. George and E. Caitlin. 8th ed. Translated by S. Solovay. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1958. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.

Habermas, 1972. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Herman, Nancy J. and Larry T. Reynolds. 1994. Symbolic Interaction: An Introduction to Social Psychology . Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.

LaRossa, R. and D.C. Reitzes. 1993. “Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies.” Pp. 135–163 in Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach , edited by P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. New York: Springer.

Lerner, Gerda. 1986. The Creation of Patriarchy . NY: Oxford University Press.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Martineau, Harriet. 1837. Society in America. New York: Saunders and Otley. Retrieved February 24, 2014 from  https://archive.org/details/societyinamerica02martiala

Maryanski, Alexandra and Jonathan Turner. 1992. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1977 [1845]. “Theses on Feuerbach.” Pp. 156–158 in   Karl Marx: Selected Writings , edited by David McLellan. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1977 [1851]. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Pp. 300–325 in Karl Marx: Selected Writings , edited by David McLellan . Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 1978 [1843]. “For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing.” Pp. 12–15 in  The Marx-Engels Reader , edited by  R. C. Tucker. New York: W. W. Norton.

Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Naiman, Joanne. 2012. How Societies Work, (5th ed.). Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.

Parsons, T. 1961. Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory . New York: Free Press.

Smith, Dorothy. 1977.  Feminism and Marxism: A Place to Begin, a Way to Go.  Vancouver: New Star Books.

Spencer, Herbert. 1898. The Principles of Biology . New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Weber, Max. 1997 [1922]. “Definitions of Sociology and Social Action.” Pp 157–164 in  Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader, edited by  Ian McIntosh. NY: New York University Press.

Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective . New York: Anchor Books.

Cisco. 2102.  Gen Y: New Dawn for Work, Play, Identity Cisco Connected World Technology Report. Retrieved February 4, 2012 from  http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns1120/2012-CCWTR-Chapter1-Global-Results.pdf

Department of Sociology, University of Alabama. N.d. Is Sociology Right for You? . Huntsville: University of Alabama. Retrieved January 19, 2012 from  http://www.uah.edu/la/departments/sociology/about-sociology/why-sociology

IDC. 2012. Always Connected: How Smartphones and Social Media Keep Us Connected IDC Research Report. Retrieved February 4, 2014 from  https://fb-public.app.box.com/s/3iq5x6uwnqtq7ki4q8wk

NewsComAu. 2013. “Comedian Louis CK’s compelling philosophy: ‘Smartphones are toxic’.” NewsComAu September 21. Retrieved February 4, 2014 from http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/comedian-louis-ck8217s-compelling-philosophy-8216smartphones-are-toxic8217/story-fn6vihic-1226724328876

Vaughan, Frederick. 2004.  Aggressive in Pursuit: The Life of Justice Emmett Hall.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Solutions to Section Quiz

1. C | 2. B | 3. A | 4. C | 5. B | 6. B | 7. C | 8. A | 9. B | 10. D | 11. B | 12. A | 13. D | 14. B | 15. B | 16. D | 17. C

Image Attributions

Figure 1.1  Canada Day National Capital by Derek Hatfield ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_Day_National_Capital.jpg ) used under CC BY 2.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en )

Figure 1.2. Il (secondo?) bacio più famoso della storia: Vancouver Riot Kiss by Pasquale Borriello (https://www.flickr.com/photos/pazca/5844049845/in/photostream/) used under CC BY 2.0 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ )

Figure 1.4   c  Ibn Khaldun by Waqas Ahmed ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ibn_Khaldun.jpg ) used under CC BY-SA 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en );

Figure 1.5.   Newton-WilliamBlake by William Blake ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(Blake)#mediaviewer/File:Newton-WilliamBlake.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain )

Figure 1.6 Hon. T.C. Douglas by Lieut. G. Barry Gilroy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tommycropped.jpg ) is in public domain

Figure 1.8.  Harriet Martineau portrait ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harriet_martineau_portrait.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.9.  Emile Durkheim ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emile_Durkheim.jpg)  is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.10.  Max Weber ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Weber_1917.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.11.  Georg Simmel by Julius Cornelius Schaarwächter ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Georg_Simmel.jpg ) is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Figure 1.14. Hon. T.C. Douglas, Premier of Saskatchewan by Lieut. G. Barry Gilroy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tommycropped.jpg ) is in public domain.

Figure 1.15.  The Last of the Clan by Thomas Faed ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Faed_-_The_Last_of_the_Clan.JPG )  is in the public domain ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Material_in_the_public_domain ).

Introduction to Sociology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2014 by William Little and Ron McGivern is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Research Methods in Sociology – An Introduction

Table of Contents

Last Updated on May 4, 2023 by Karl Thompson

An introduction to research methods in Sociology covering quantitative, qualitative, primary and secondary data and defining the basic types of research method including social surveys, experiments, interviews, participant observation, ethnography and longitudinal studies.

Why do social research?

The simple answer is that without it, our knowledge of the social world is limited to our immediate and limited life-experiences. Without some kind of systematic research, we cannot know the answer to even basic questions such as how many people live in the United Kingdom, let alone the answers to more complex questions about why working class children get worse results at school or why the crime rate has been falling every year since 1995.

So the most basic reason for doing social research is to describe the social world around us: To find out what people think and feel about social issues and how these thoughts and feelings vary across social groups and regions. Without research, you simply do not know with any degree of certainty, what is going on in the world.

However, most research has the aim of going beyond mere description. Sociologists typically limit themselves to a specific research topic and conduct research in order to achieve a research aim or sometimes to answer a specific question.

Subjective and Objective Knowledge in Social Research

Research in Sociology is usually carefully planned, and conducted using well established procedures to ensure that knowledge is objective – where the information gathered reflects what is really ‘out there’ in the social, world rather than ‘subjective’ – where it only reflects the narrow opinions of the researchers. The careful, systematic and rigorous use of research methods is what makes sociological knowledge ‘objective’ rather than ‘subjective’.

Subjective knowledge – is knowledge based purely on the opinions of the individual, reflecting their values and biases, their point of view

Objective knowledge – is knowledge which is free of the biases, opinions and values of the researcher, it reflects what is really ‘out there’ in the social world.

While most Sociologists believe that we should strive to make our data collection as objective as possible, there are some Sociologists (known as Phenomenologists) who argue that it is not actually possible to collect data which is purely objective – The researcher’s opinions always get in the way of what data is collected and filtered for publication.

Sources and types of data

In social research, it is usual to distinguish between primary and secondary data and qualitative and quantitative data

Quantitative data refers to information that appears in numerical form, or in the form of statistics.

Qualitative data refers to information that appears in written, visual or audio form, such as transcripts of interviews, newspapers and web sites. (It is possible to analyse qualitative data and display features of it numerically!)

Secondary data is data that has been collected by previous researchers or organisations such as the government. Quantitative sources of secondary data include official government statistics and qualitative sources are very numerous including government reports, newspapers, personal documents such as diaries as well as the staggering amount of audio-visual content available online.

Primary data is data collected first hand by the researcher herself. If a sociologist is conducting her own unique sociological research, she will normally have specific research questions she wants answered and thus tailor her research methods to get the data she wants. The main methods sociologists use to generate primary data include social surveys (normally using questionnaire), interviews, experiments and observations.

Four main primary research methods

For the purposes of A-level sociology there are four major primary research methods

• social surveys (typically questionnaires)
• experiments
• participant observation

I have also included in this section longitudinal studies and ethnographies/ case studies.

Social Surveys

Social Surveys – are typically structured questionnaires designed to collect information from large numbers of people in standardised form.

Social Surveys are written in advance by the researcher and tend to to be pre-coded and have a limited number of closed-questions and they tend to focus on relatively simple topics. A good example is the UK National Census. Social Surveys can be administered (carried out) in a number of different ways – they might be self-completion (completed by the respondents themselves) or they might take the form of a structured interview on the high street, as is the case with some market research.

Experiments

Experiments – aim to measure as precisely as possible the effect which one variable has on another, aiming to establish cause and effect relationships between variables.

Experiments typically start off with a hypothesis – a theory or explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, and will typically take the form of a testable statement about the effect which one or more independent variables will have on the dependent variable. A good experiment will be designed in such a way that objective cause and effect relationships can be established, so that the original hypothesis can verified, or rejected and modified.

There are two types of experiment – laboratory and field experiments – A laboratory experiment takes place in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory, whereas a field experiment takes place in a real-life setting such as a classroom, the work place or even the high street.

Interviews – A method of gathering information by asking questions orally, either face to face or by telephone.

Structured Interviews are basically social surveys which are read out by the researcher – they use pre-set, standardised, typically closed questions. The aim of structured interviews is to produce quantitative data.

Unstructured Interviews , also known as informal interviews, are more like a guided conversation, and typically involve the researcher asking open-questions which generate qualitative data. The researcher will start with a general research topic in and ask questions in response to the various and differentiated responses the respondents give. Unstructured Interviews are thus a flexible, respondent-led research method.

Semi-Structured Interviews consist of an interview schedule which typically consists of a number of open-ended questions which allow the respondent to give in-depth answers. For example, the researcher might have 10 questions (hence structured) they will ask all respondents, but ask further differentiated (unstructured) questions based on the responses given.

Participant Observation

Participant Observation – involves the researcher joining a group of people, taking an active part in their day to day lives as a member of that group and making in-depth recordings of what she sees.

Participant Observation may be overt , in which case the respondents know that researcher is conducing sociological research, or covert (undercover) where the respondents are deceived into thinking the researcher is ‘one of them’ do not know the researcher is conducting research.

Ethnographies and Case Studies

Ethnographies are an in-depth study of the way of life of a group of people in their natural setting. They are typically very in-depth and long-term and aim for a full (or ‘thick’), multi-layred account of the culture of a group of people. Participant Observation is typically the main method used, but researchers will use all other methods available to get even richer data – such as interviews and analysis of any documents associated with that culture.

Case Studies involves researching a single case or example of something using multiple methods – for example researching one school or factory. An ethnography is simply a very in-depth case study.

Longitudinal Studies

Longitudinal Studies are studies of a sample of people in which information is collected from the same people at intervals over a long period of time. For example, a researcher might start off in 2015 by getting a sample of 1000 people to fill in a questionnaire, and then go back to the same people in 2020, and again in 2025 to collect further information.

Secondary Research Methods

The main type of secondary quantitative data which students of A-level sociology need to know about are official statistics, which are data collected by government agencies, usually on a regular basis and include crime statistics, the Census and quantitative schools data such as exam results.

Secondary qualitative data is data which already exists in written or audiovisual form and include news media, the entire qualitative content of the internent (so blogs and social media data), and more old-school data sources such as diaries, autobiographies and letters.

Sociologists sometimes distinguish between private and public documents, which is a starting point to understanding the enormous variety of data out there!

Secondary data can be a challenge to get your head around because there are so many different types, all with subtly different advantages and disadvantages, and so this particular sub-topic is more likely to demand you to apply your knowledge (rather than just wrote learn) compared to other research methods!

Related Posts 

Factors Effecting the Choice of Research Method

Positivism and Interpretivism – A Very Brief Overview

my main research methods page contains links to all of my posts on research methods.

Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle 

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods Revision Bundle – specifically designed to get students through the theory and methods sections of  A level sociology papers 1 and 3.

Contents include:

• 74 pages of revision notes
• 15 mind maps on various topics within theory and methods
• Five theory and methods essays
• ‘How to write methods in context essays’.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

15 thoughts on “Research Methods in Sociology – An Introduction”

• Pingback: CRITICISM OF SOCIOLOGY - Social Vibes

Thanks for the feedback, I do go through and refine as and when I can. Although for the sake of A-level sociology the distinction between research design and research methods would be lost on something like 95% of the students I taught – most just aren’t that interested – hence why I just stick with simple terminology like ‘methods’. Those that take this on to degree level, that’s where those sorts of distinctions start to matter, but point taken, I could be tighter in many places!

You’re all over the place here. You’re confusing research designs and research methods. A survey for example is research design and can be done by different methods. You talk about ‘structured questionnaires’. What, then, would an unstructured questionnaire look like? Can you find an example? You need to put more work in. This will confuse students.

• Pingback: research methods of sociology - infose.xyz

Hey cheers!

Very Helpful!!

Glad to hear it, you’re welcome!

Very useful, got valuable insights…..

good insights and precise

very, very helpful

It’s tooo much amazing… I m feeling so much happy….

• Pingback: Factors Affecting Choice of Research Methods | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: Factors Effecting Choice of Research Methods | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: Research Methods in Sociology – An Introduction | Urban speeches

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

SOC 101 - Northwest - Introduction to Sociology: Sample Papers

• Get Started
• Class Resources
• Popular vs Scholarly Articles
• Library Resources (articles, books, video/media)
• Streaming Video
• Sociology in the News
• APA 7 Style

Sample papers

Sample Papers

Sample APA paper from OWL (PDF) Sample APA paper from Diana Hacker (PDF)

• Last Updated: Mar 13, 2024 4:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.pima.edu/nwsoc101

Sociology Research Paper

This sample sociology research paper features: 10800 words (approx. 36 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 59 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

More Sociology Research Paper Examples:

• Disaster Research Paper
• Gambling Research Paper
• Group Dynamics Research Paper
• Human Ecology Research Paper
• Knowledge Research Paper
• Love Research Paper
• Quality of Life Research Paper
• Social Change Research Paper
• Social Movements Research Paper
• Social Networks Research Paper
• Social Stratification Research Paper
• Socialization Research Paper
• Sociology of Religion Research Paper

Introduction

The early sociology, the foundation of social science: statistical studies, the rise of american sociology, the substance of the sociological perspective, the passion for sociology, conclusion: the future of sociology.

• Bibliography

A commonly accepted definition of sociology as a special science is that it is the study of social aggregates and groups in their institutional organization, of institutions and their organization, and of the causes and consequences of changes in institutions and social organization. (Albert J. Reiss, Jr. 1968:1)

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Within the contemporary context, sociologists are interested in human social interaction as people take one another into account as each behaves toward the other. Sociologists also take into analytical consideration the systemic units of interaction within social groups, social relations, and social organizations. As stated by Reiss (1968), the purview of sociology extends to

Governments, corporations, and school systems to such territorial organizations as communities or to the schools, factories, and churches . . . that are components of communities. . . . are also concerned with social aggregates, or populations, in their institutional organization. (P. 1) (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Sociology is, as Touraine (1990) suggests, an interpretation of social experience and is thus a part of the reality that the practitioners of the discipline attempt to observe and explain. To these areas we can add that sociology is a discipline that demystifies its subject matter, and it is, as Dennis H. Wrong (1990:21–22) notes, a debunker of popular beliefs, holds skeptical and critical views of the institutions that are studied (Smelser 1990), and challenges myth making (Best 2001).

The early history of sociology is a history of ideas developed in the European tradition, whereas the sociological approach of the last 150 years involved the development of concepts, methodology, and theories, especially in the United States (Goudsblom and Heilbron 2001). As American sociologists trained in the traditional theory and methods developed during the first eight decades of the twentieth century, we acknowledge our intellectual debt to the European founders. But beyond an earnest recognition of the classic work of the early founders, including Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, Alexis de Tocqueville, Frederic LePlay, Marcell Mauss, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Harriet Martineau, most of whom were attracted to the European environment that included the liberalism, radicalism, and conservatism of the early to mid-nineteenth century (Nisbet 1966; Friedrichs 1970) and to what C. Wright Mills (1959) refers to as the sociological imagination that “enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society” (p. 6), our approach to sociology is deeply embedded with and indebted to those individuals who established the Chicago, Harvard, Iowa, and Berkeley schools of thought. Similarly, as practitioners, our approach to the discipline of sociology is reflected in these distinctive American scholarly perspectives.

The American tradition of sociology has focused on social policy issues relating to social problems, the recognition of which grew out of the dynamic periods of social transformation wrought by the Industrial Revolution, the Progressive Era, world crises engendered by war, worldwide population shifts, increasing mechanization, and the effort of sociologists to create a specific niche for the discipline within a growing scientific community. This effort occurred first in North America and Western Europe and then, similar to cultural transitions of the past, within a global context. In every instance, the motives embedded within a science of society lie in the attempt to understand and offer proposals for solutions to whatever problems gain significant attention at a particular point in time.

In a most interesting work, Goudsblom and Heilbron (2001) pose that sociology represents a great diversity, or what some analysts may refer to as fragmentation, because the discipline grew as a part of the processes affecting societies and cultures worldwide throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Thus, as we move well into a new era and a new stage of academic development, it remains important that we recognize the sociological heritage as identified and discussed by these analysts. The five stages that sociology has experienced to date are (1) the predisciplinary stage prior to 1830, further identified as “protosociologies”; (2) the formation of the intellectual discipline, 1830–1890; (3) the formation of an academic discipline with diverging national traditions, 1890–1930; (4) the establishment of an international academic discipline, 1930–1970; and (5) a period of crisis, fragmentation, and attempts to develop a new synthesis, 1970–2000 (Goudsblom and Heilbron 2001:14574–80).

Consistent with the fifth stage, for almost four decades we have been witness to major changes in the substantive topics that undergo sociological inquiry both in the United States and, given the influence on the discipline by Canadian, European, and Scandinavian scholars, internationally. Among the areas more fully developed that might be identified as fragmentation are many of the most interesting sociological topics, including deviant behavior, the family, religion, gender, aging, health, the environment, science and technology, among so many seemingly unrelated topics. The unique conceptual paradigms of sociology serve as a template or pattern for seeing the social world in a special way. Every discipline and, indeed, every occupation employs templates or patterns to see and accomplish things in a unique fashion. Disciplines such as sociology rely on intellectual templates based on certain conceptual schemes or paradigms that have evolved through the development of a body of knowledge in those disciplines.

In its early era of the mid- to late nineteenth century, sociology was understood to represent anything relating to the study of social problems. Indeed, it was thought that the methods of the social sciences could be applied to social problems and used to develop solutions (Bernard and Bernard 1943). In focusing on such substance, O’Neill (1967:168–69) notes that periodicals of this early period had a sociological section in which news items relating to family matters, poverty, and labor often appeared. These early social scientists did not hold any special talents other than their training in theology. This situation was similar in the United States as well. It is not difficult, then, to imagine that, as Bramson (1961) notes, “For many American sociologists these problems evoked a moral response” (p. 75). Thus, the process of solving the problems of society was attempted by application of the conventional morality and the validation of Christian principles of piety rather than reform or progress.

Sociology was born as a result of a process, a process that directed a method of inquiry away from philosophy and toward positivism (MacIver 1934). Sociology was the result of a process caused by two major forces—namely, the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. The events, changes, and ideas that emerged from these two revolutions are found in the nineteenth-century thought pertaining to social order (Eisenstadt 1968). Following in the wake of the Age of Reason and the Renaissance, according to Nisbet (1966), this was a period of word formation:

Perhaps the richest period of word formation in history . . . which were either invented during this period or were modified to their present meanings: industry, industrialist, democracy, class, middle class, ideology, intellectual, rationalism, humanitarian, atomistic, masses, commercialism, proletariat, collectivism, equalitarian, liberal, conservative, scientist, crisis . . . [among others]. (P. 23)

These were words that held great moral and partisan interest in the European economy and culture; such passions were identified with politics as well.

Identified with European conservatism, which became infused by and with science, the visionary perspective promoted by Auguste Comte during the 1830s in his six-volume Positive Philosophy, later translated from the French and condensed into two volumes by Harriet Martineau, was based on the medieval model of European society.

This model of family, community, authority, tradition, and the sacred became the core of scientific sociology that was to serve notice that a science of society was essential to provide for more than commonsense analysis and to reestablish social order (MacIver 1934). Although unsuccessful in his quest to secure a professorship, Auguste Comte was a positivist, mathematician, and promoter of the scientific identity of the engineering profession (Noble 1999). Comte argued that positivism and the still-to-beidentified area of “sociology” would serve as a means of supporting his intention to create a unique perspective of human relations and a system to reestablish the social order and organization of society. Reestablishment of this new social order was to proceed in accordance with the positivist stage of evolution with its ineluctable natural laws that could and would be established through engaging the scientific perspective. Along with the arts, the science of sociology, according to Comte, was to emerge as the queen of the sciences, the scientia scientorum, and would ultimately supplant biology and cosmology.

If the restoration of order in French society was a preoccupation for many early-nineteenth-century scholars, including Auguste Comte, it was also the case, as Bramson (1961) notes, that

many of the key concepts of sociology illustrate this concern with the maintenance and conservation of order; ideas such as status, hierarchy ritual, integration, social function and social control are themselves a part of the history of the reaction to the ideals of the French Revolution. What conservative critics saw as resulting from these movements was not the progressive liberation of individuals, but increasing insecurity and alienation, the breakdown of traditional associations and group ties. (Pp. 13–14)

For social scientists of the early nineteenth century, many of the problems of the time were much more well defined than is the case in the contemporary experience.

Comte was fervently religious, and he believed those interested in science would constitute a “priesthood of positivism” that would ultimately lead to a new social order. According to Noble (1999),

A theist in spite of himself, Comte declared that the existence of the Great Being “is deeply stamped on all its creations, in moral, in the arts and sciences, in industry,” and he insisted, as had previous like-minded prophets since Erigena, that all such manifestations of divinity were equally vital means of mankind’s regeneration . . . Comte was convinced that people like himself, science-minded engineering savants occupied with the study of the sciences of observation are the only men whose capacity and intellectual culture fulfill the necessary conditions. (P. 85)

The legacy of this enthusiastic perspective is that sociology has been at the heart of the positivists’ contribution to the understanding of the human condition. It was also to serve in part as a basis for the reactions of conflict theorist Karl Marx, especially as these writings referred to the religious opiate of the masses deemed by Comte as critical to the reorganization of society (Noble 1999:87). The discipline continues to present an array of perspectives that have served to stimulate much controversy within both society and the discipline (see Turner 2001).

Although the sociological legacy of Harriet Martineau is substantial, as outlined by Lengermann and NiebruggeBrantley (1998), it was Martineau’s effort to translate and condense Auguste Comte’s six-volume magnum opus into a two-volume set of writings published in 1853 that allowed this important work to be available to the Englishspeaking world. Interestingly, Comte’s English translation came after Martineau’s sociological contributions, the richness of which was finally recognized by feminist researchers during the 1980s and 1990s. Martineau engaged in “participant observation” of the United States during the mid-1830s and subsequently published the two-volume Society in America (1836/1837), which is based on this excursion to the North American continent. Because of this experience, Martineau was able to lay the foundation for her treatise on research methodology in How to Observe Morals and Manners (1838).

Perhaps it is ironic that the distinctive difference between the European theoretical sociology and the empirical sociology practiced in the United States was advanced by events in Europe. Indeed, the origin of empirical sociology is rooted in Europe. Statistical studies began in the 1660s, thereby preceding the birth of all of the social sciences by a couple of centuries. The early statistical gatherers and analysts were involved in “political arithmetic” or the gathering of data considered relevant to public policy matters of the state, and as noted by Reiss (1968), the gathering of such data may have been accelerated to meet the needs of the newly emerging insurance industry and other commercial activities of the time. But it was the early work of the moral statisticians interested in reestablishing social order in the emerging industrial societies that was to lay the quantitative foundation for the discipline, especially the early scientific work of the French sociologist Émile Durkheim (Whitt 2001:229–35).

The second stage in the early history of quantification may have been related to the development of probability theory, the rise of the insurance industry, other commercial activities, and political necessity (Lecuyer and Oberschall 1968; Reiss 1968). English political arithmeticians, including John Graunt and William Petty, were destined to be followed by the efforts of the moral statisticians who engaged in data gathering in Belgium and France. Indeed, as early as 1831, the Belgian Adolphe Quetelet and the Frenchman Andre Michel de Guerry de Champneuf, in building on the early efforts of the practitioners of the “political arithmetic” that first began in the 1660s, were engaging in the government-sponsored data-gathering activity pertaining to data on moral topics, including suicide, prostitution, and illegitimacy. Such activities would prove quite instrumental in the establishment of the empirical social sciences. Even many of the methodologies developed during this same era of the early nineteenth century, as well as awareness of important ecological methodological issues such as statistical interactions, the ecological fallacy, and spuriousness, were developed by early moral statisticians such as Andre-Michel de Guerry and Adolphe Quetelet. Later, the work of Henry Morselli, Enrico Ferri, and Alfred Maury during this same century were to serve well the needs of aspiring European sociologists and even later members of the Chicago School of Sociology (Whitt 2001:229–31).

American sociology is one of the intellectual creations that has most deeply influenced our century. No other society ( the American ) has been more actively involved in understanding its own organizational change for the sake of knowledge itself. (Touraine 1990:252)

The birth of the social sciences in general and of sociology in particular is traced to the liberal democratic ideas generated by the British social philosophies of the seventeenth century—ideas that later were to be enhanced by the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century and then transformed in the United States where these ideas served as the foundation for practical democratic society. The rise of American sociology can be traced to the early-nineteenthcentury social science movement, a movement that by the mid-1800s became a new discipline that was widely introduced into college and university curricula. The movement also led to the establishment of a national social science association that was to later spawn various distinctive social sciences, including sociology, as well as social reform associations (Bernard and Bernard 1943:1–8).

Although the promotion of the social sciences in the United States began as early as 1865 with the establishment of the American Association for the Promotion of Social Sciences and then, in 1869, creation of the American Social Science Association with its associationsponsored publication the Journal of Social Science, prior to the 1880s there had been no organized and systematic scientific research in the United States. This was the case simply because, as Howard W. Odum ([1927] 1965:3–20) noted, there was no university per se in which research as a scientific pursuit could be conducted. It is within the context of the movement to organize such a university that sociology and many other social sciences were embraced as viable academic disciplines, thereby allowing systematic research to be conducted in a rigorous manner. This also was a period of great emphasis on pursuing answers to new research questions through the evaluation of knowledge and the employment of methodological and statistical tools within an interdisciplinary context. Indeed, L. L. Bernard and Jessie Bernard (1943) posit that the vision of the founders of the American Social Science Association was “to establish a unified science of society which could and would see all human problems in their relationships and make an effort to solve these problems as unified wholes” (p. 601).

Thus, the social sciences in general and sociology in particular owe a great intellectual debt to the American intellects who studied at length with the masters of Europe. Included among these are notables such as William Graham Sumner, Lester Frank Ward, Albion Woodbury Small, Franklin Henry Giddings, John William Burgess, Herbert B. Adams, Thorstein Veblen, Frederick Jackson

Turner, James Harvey Robinson, George Vincent, Charles Horton Cooley, Edward Alsworth Ross, George Howard, Frank W. Blackmar, Ulysses G. Weatherly, John R. Commons, and Richard T. Ely (see Odum 1951, [1927] 1965); each of whom were well versed in scholarly areas other than sociology, including history, theology, economics, political science, and statistics. With the decline of the social science movement and its national association, the general discipline that emerged from the remains of social science was in fact sociology (Bernard and Bernard 1943:835).

The development of an intellectual and academic American sociology, like sociology in any part of the world, was and continues to be dependent on the social and political conditions of the country. In the United States, a liberal political climate and, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the advent of a system of a mass public education system, American sociology flourished. Thus, in countries in which the structure of the system of higher education was open to free inquiry, research was supported by private foundations and government contributions (Wright 1895), and the university was organized albeit loosely, sociology, subject to the polemics of its status as an academic science, gained entry if not acceptance among university faculty. Where education was available to the elite rather than the masses, sociology was less apt to flourish (Reiss 1968).

Another important factor is that American sociology arose basically without roots other than the growing influence of the social science movement in the United States and the emphasis on the virtues of science that permeated the intellectual and social environs of this same period. As noted by Neil J. Smelser (1990:49–60), American sociology did not experience the yoke of either European feudalism or any peculiar intellectual history. Rather, sociology came into being within American higher education during the 1880s and only after several other disciplines, including psychology and economics, had been accepted within the academy. Attempts among adherents of these other disciplines led to the establishment of the scientific theme within the social sciences. Early sociologists embraced this same scientific theme.

A second factor that had a profound effect on the early adherents of the sociological perspective is the social reform theme of the 1890s. The legacy of these two themes—namely, scientific respectability and social reform—became the dual platforms on which the unique American sociological perspective was to be based.

Although there was a great, direct influence of European thought, research, and the philosophy of the British Social Science Association on sociology to focus on attempting to solve America’s problems (Odum 1951:36–50), the rise of American sociology, at least during the first half of the twentieth century, was concomitant with the most dynamic period of technological, economic, and social reform changes ever recorded. In this context, Howard W. Odum (1951:52) views sociology as a product of the American social and cultural experience and places sociology’s heritage to be as “American as American literature,American culture, and the freedoms of the new world democracy” (p. 3). American sociology is thus part European and part American. Indeed, American sociology was envisioned early on as a social science that could and would assist policymakers and concerned citizens in creating the “American Dream.”

Consistent with this ideology, Odum (1951:59–60) identified three unique American developments, each of which influenced the direction of American sociology throughout the entire twentieth century. The first of these developments is the symbiotic relationship between the discipline and the American society and culture. The ideology that focused on the American Dream and its realization had a great influence.

The second development, according to Odum, is the emphasis on moral development and the motivation to establish ethics as a component of the educational curricula,American literature, and the social sciences, especially as these relate to ethical conduct, social justice, and public morality. Within sociology, this orientation is found in the application of sociological principles into economic and organizational behavior and the founding of the American Institute of Christian Sociology.

Finally, Odum (1951) notes, the American experience led to a research emphasis on social problems of a moral and economic nature. In an effort to better understand these social problems, sociologists organized the systematic study of issues such as waves of immigration, the working class, public disorder, neglect of children, violence toward women, intergroup conflict, urbanism, alcoholism, suicide, crime, mental illness, delinquency, and poverty (see also Fine 2006). This was the application side of sociology that held important social policy implication. However, there was also an early emphasis on a “general sociology” as opposed to a “special sociology” as was found at the more elite institutions of higher learning. Clearly, this difference foreshadowed the pure versus applied dichotomy that has generated so much discussion within the discipline (see Odum 1951:51–74).

Because of the important influence of the social science movement in the United States, there is some disagreement pertaining to who the founders and members of the first generation of American sociologists are (see Odum 1951, [1927] 1965). But publication of Lester Ward’s book Dynamic Sociology in 1883 does appear to mark the beginning of American sociology (Bramson 1961:84–85). On the other hand, there does not seem to be any disagreement as to the purpose of the American founders, and that was to establish a scientific theoretical base. Later, at the University of Chicago the goals were to establish a relationship between sociology and the classical problems of philosophy by focusing on process issues relating to elements of social control, such as conflict, competition, and accommodation (Kurtz 1986:95).

American sociology emerged concomitant with the challenges to legal philosophy and the discussion of questions relating to myriad questions that arose as the effects of industrialization were observed Calhoun (1919). Such questions have their focus on marriage, divorce, immigration, poverty, and health and how to employ the emerging scientific model to topical data that had been gathered by the nineteenth-century moral statisticians.

Leon Bramson (1961:47–48) observed that the most interesting aspect of American sociology in the first half of the twentieth century is that when affected by European theories of mass behavior and collective behavior, American sociologists, in their haste to establish a role for sociology in America, either transformed the meaning of the concepts to meet their needs or created new concepts to apply to the more liberal American social and political context. American sociologists, according to Bramson, also applied European theoretical concepts such as social pathology, social disorganization, and social control to the data referring to the American experience without regard for whatever special conditions should have been accounted for or even possible theoretical distortions; this issue is also discussed by Lester R. Kurtz (1986:60–83) in his evaluation of the Chicago School of Sociology.

Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (1968) notes that the first formal instruction of a sociology course in the United States was offered by William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale University, during 1876. The first, second, and third American Departments of Sociology were established at Brown University, the University of Chicago, and Columbia University, respectively (Kurtz 1986:93–97). Between 1889 and 1892, 18 American colleges and universities offered instruction in sociology, but in 1893, the University of Chicago was the first to develop a program that led to the granting of a Ph.D.

Despite the recognition of the emerging field of sociology as a distinctive area of inquiry, the focal point of a religious orientation and perhaps fervor expressed by social commentators in their discussions and analyses of the social issues that were to constitute the purview of sociology also engaged the attention of other early practitioners of the discipline. The social problems identified in the wake of expansion of the American West and the building of the railroads included issues relating to “the influx of immigrants, the rise of the factory system and the concentration of people in big cities. These comprised the now familiar catalogue of crime, delinquency, divorce, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, minority problems and slums” (Bramson 1961:75).

Alfred McClung Lee (1978:69) notes that ever since that time, sociologists have been attempting to divorce themselves from an ancestry that is historically rooted in the clergy, the police, utopian ideologues, social reformers, conservative apologists, journalistic muckrakers, radical thinkers, agitators, and civil libertarians.

Given the moral tone of much of the writing of many early American sociologists, it is noteworthy that in articulating the six “aims” of the American Journal of Sociology established at the University of Chicago in 1895, the scientific view of sociological concern so clearly defined several decades later by E. A. Ross (1936) was not so clear to many if not all of the moral philosophers of this earlier period. Witness the following comments offered by the founding editor of the American Journal of Sociology, Albion W. Small (1895):

Sociology has a foremost place in the thought of modern men. Approve or deplore the fact at pleasure, we cannot escape it. . . . To many possible readers the most important question abut the conduct of the Journal will be with reference to its attitude toward “Christian Sociology.” The answer is, in a word, towards Christian sociology sincerely deferential, toward “Christian sociologists” severely suspicious. (Pp. 1, 15)

These comments were of particular significance given that the American Journal of Sociology was not only the first journal of sociology created anywhere, but it was also, until 1936, the official journal of the American Sociological Society. Thus, the influence of both the Chicago School and the large number of contributions by its faculty and students to the American Journal of Sociology placed the work of the Chicago School at the forefront in shaping the early direction and substance of American, Canadian, and Polish sociology (Kurtz 1986:93–97). This was especially true in the subareas of urban and community studies, race and ethnic relations, crime and juvenile delinquency, deviance, communications and public opinion, and political sociology.

Leon Bramson (1961:73–95) identified three important phases in the rise of American sociology. The first period began in 1883 with the publication of Lester Ward’s Dynamic Sociology to about 1915 or 1918 with the publication of Robert E. Park’s essay on the city and/or the end of World War I, respectively. During this period, the founders began their earnest quest to establish the theoretical foundation as it related to the American experience focusing on “a liberal sociology of change and process, rather than one of conservation and equilibrium” (Bramson 1961:85).

This focus on change and process became even more evident during the second stage of American sociology, identified as the period between the two world wars. This was a period of academic expansion, with major increases in faculty and students, but even more important, led by sociologists at the University of Chicago, this was a period of specialization and the beginning of differentiation within sociology as the quest to develop a viable methodology began in earnest. This also was a meaningful period during which sociologists worked to establish the scientific status of the discipline and to earn respectability and academic legitimization. It was also a period during which many of the conceptual problems of sociology first began to emerge as its practitioners developed an increasingly complex technical vocabulary, a vast array of classification schema, and other abstract systems categories of thought. Perhaps assuming the need to compensate for a past that included so many nonscientifically moral reformistoriented representatives of the discipline, sociologists responded during this phase of development by creating complex theories that, for an extended period of time, were not only unintelligible to the layperson, but also the abstract nature of these grand theories exceeded the ability of social scientists to create methodologies appropriate to empirically test these theoretical models (Lee 1978). But despite this theoretical/methodological problem, this second stage of sociological development was also one in which much substance was created.

The history of sociology in America from prior to World War I to approximately the mid-1930s is, according to Kurtz (1986), a history of the school of thought promoted by the University of Chicago. If the second phase of American sociology is to be distinguished as a period dominated by the Chicago sociologists, it is also one that led Pitirim Sorokin to observe that American sociology was emerging as a distinctive brand:

The bulk of the sociological works in America are marked by their quantitative and empirical character while the bulk of the sociological literature of Europe is still marked by an analytical elaboration of concepts and definitions; by a philosophical and epistemological polishing of words. (Cited in Bramson 1961:89)

The period is characterized by a marked increase in the development of new and expanding methodologies and measurement. These new techniques included a plethora of scales intended to measure the theoretical concepts developed previously.

As noted, Goudsblom and Heilbron (2001) identify five phases of development of the discipline that cover the period prior to 1830 to the very end of the twentieth century. But the third phase of the development of American sociology, identified by Bramson (1961) as covering the period from 1940 to 1960, is noteworthy because this was a period during which the development and adoption of theories of the “middle-range” advocated by Robert K. Merton led to even greater specialization and differentiation of the discipline. In turn, sociologists began to develop ever-expanding areas of inquiry. Robert K. Merton ([1957] 1968), who wrote in reaction to the abstractness of the previous dominant position of the functionalist school of sociology, stated that theories of the middle range are

theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behavior, social organization and social change. (P. 39)

The all-inclusive efforts refer, of course, to the contributions of Talcott Parsons in The Structure of Social Action, originally published in 1937, and in 1951 with the appearance of The Social System.

The third phase of development can be characterized as the most enthusiastic period during which greater emphasis was placed on the application of sociological knowledge. As the field expanded, new outlets for sociological studies and knowledge were created, sociologists found employment in nonacademic settings such as government and business, and the new specialty areas of interest reflected the changes in American society, including a growing rise in membership in the middle class, the expansion of the suburbs, more leisure time, and the growth of bureaucracy. In lieu of the previous sociological interest in the reform of society and the more traditional social problems orientation of the discipline, the new sociology opted to leave such concerns to the social work profession and to special studies programs such as criminology. Thus, specialty areas emerged—areas such as the sociology of marriage and the family, and aging (later to be defined as gerontology), industrial sociology, public opinion, organizations, communications, and social psychiatry (later called mental health). From this point forward, the continued rise to respectability of sociology is attributed by analysts such as Robert Nisbet (1966) to the public recognition that societal problems are more integrative in nature than previously thought. This may also serve as a partial explanation for why the discipline is viewed by some as fragmented.

The logic and ethos of science is the search for the truth, the objective truth. Thus, the most fundamental problem the social scientist confronts, according to Gunnar Myrdal (1969), is this:

What is objectivity, and how can the student attain objectivity in trying to find out the facts and the causal relationships between facts? [That is,] How can a biased view be avoided? The challenge is to maintain an objectivity of that which the sociologist is a part. (P. 3)

Although the sociologies of the United States and Europe differ in perspective, both attempt to answer similar albeit distinguishable questions. In his discussion of “the two faces of sociology,” Touraine (1990:240) states that these differences lie in the scholarly research response to two problems: (1) How does society exist? (2) How are culture and society historically created and transformed by work, by the specific way nature and its resources are put to use, and through systems of political, economic, and social organization? Because the intellectual legacy of American sociological thought has been shaped to a large extent by the historical experience of creating a nation in which the rights and the will of the American people have been dominant, American sociologists have long focused on “institution” as a central concept and the significance of efforts of reform movements within the American society to affect its social organization. Thus, the substance of American sociology has been on topics such as the family, social organization, community, the criminal justice system, and law and society among the numerous institutionallevel areas of inquiry that are evaluated within the context of yet another American theoretical focus—namely, the emphasis on theories of the middle range. European sociologists, on the other hand, tend to focus on the second question while emphasizing the concept “revolution” in their analyses. Thus, even when similar topics such as social movements serve as the focus of inquiry, the American and European sociology responds from a different perspective (Touraine 1990). To understand the importance of this difference in perspective between the two sociologies, Alain Touraine (1990) poses the view that American sociology has a symbiotic relationship between culture and society, whereas European sociology integrates society and its history. Americans sociologists focus on society; the European sociology is focused on the rich history that serves as the backdrop for any attempt to understand social change.

Because the American experience is predicated on building a nation through the rule of law; the concepts of individualism, capitalism, and territorial conquest; and the attempt at integration of successive waves of immigrants to the North American continent,American sociology began its rise in prominence through an elitist intellectual process that dominated the academy during the early formative years of the discipline. Thus, it is perhaps ironic that an American sociology housed within the university setting would assume a critical teaching and research posture toward an elitist system of institutions that the early sociology assisted in creating. Within the context of certain kinds of social problems areas, such as ethnic studies, discrimination, and segregation, sociology and sociologists have been able to exert some influence. But in other important areas within which issues relating to elitist society may be involved, such as social class relations and economic and political power, the official and public perceptions of the efforts of American sociologists may not be as well received.

Many analysts of the past can be called on to render testimony in support of or apologize for the past efforts of sociologists to provide useful information, but none is perhaps more relevant than the following statement offered by George A. Lundberg (1947): “Good intentions are not a substitute for good techniques in either achieving physical or social goals” (p. 135). During the 1960s and 1970s, sociology, psychology, and other social science undergraduate job candidates customarily responded to interviewer queries with “I want to help people.” Similar to those who attended graduate school after World War II, these individuals were influenced by the potential of sociology to make a difference. But good intentions aside, the real issue is, How do we go about assisting/helping people? Perhaps the more educated and sophisticated we become, the more difficult are the answers to social problems and social arrangements that are deemed inappropriate or at least in need of some form of rearrangement. That is, the more we believe we already know the answers, the less apt we are to recognize the importance of the sociological perspective. Within this context, sociology necessarily must adhere to and advocate the use of the methods of science in approaching any social problem, whether this is local or international in scope.

Sociology has utility beyond addressing social problems and contributing to the development of new social policy. Indeed, the sociological perspective is empowering. Those who use it are in a position to bring about certain behavior in others. It has been said that “behavior that can be understood can be predicted, and behavior that can be predicted can likely be controlled.” It is not surprising that sociologists are often used to help select juries, develop effective advertising campaigns, plan political strategies for elections, and solve human relations problems in the workplace. As Peter Berger (1963) phrases it, “Sociological understanding can be recommended to social workers, but also to salesmen, nurses, evangelists and politicians—in fact to anyone whose goals involve the manipulation of men, for whatever purpose and with whatever moral justification” (p. 5). In some ways, it might be said that the sociological perspective puts one “in control.”

The manipulation of others, even for commendable purposes, however, is not without critical reaction or detractors. Some years back, industrial sociologists who worked for, or consulted with, industrial corporations to aid them to better address problems in the workplace were sometimes cynically labeled as “cow sociologists” because “they helped management milk the workers.” Knowledge is power that can be used for good or evil. The sociological perspective is utilitarian and empowering in that it can accomplish things for whatever purposes. Berger (1963) goes on to reflect the following:

If the sociologist can be considered a Machiavellian figure, then his talents can be employed in both humanly nefarious and humanly liberating enterprises. If a somewhat colorful metaphor may be allowed here, one can think of the sociologist as a condottiere of social perception. Some condottieri fight for the oppressors of men, others for their liberators. Especially if one looks around beyond the frontiers of America as well as within them, one can find enough grounds to believe that there is a place in today’s world for the latter type of condottiere. (P. 170)

Responding to the question, “Can science save us?” George A. Lundberg (1947) states “yes,” but he also equates the use of brain (the mind) as tantamount to employing science. Lundberg also posed the following: “Shall we place our faith in science or in something else?” (p. 142). Physical science is not capable of responding to human social issues. If sociologists have in a vain effort failed to fulfill the promise of the past, this does not indicate that they will not do so at some future time. Again, as Lundberg (1947) heeded long ago, “Science is at best a growth, not a sudden revelation. We also can use it imperfectly and in part while it is developing” (pp. 143–144).

And a few years later but prior to the turmoil that was to embroil the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, John Madge (1962) urged that a century after the death of the positivist Auguste Comte (now 150 years later) the structure of sociology remains incomplete. However, Madge recognized and demonstrates in The Origins of Scientific Sociology that sociology was slowly gaining in maturity and with this growth was on the verge of or within reach of achieving the status of a science. But it is also important to keep in focus the goals of science as articulated by Gunnar Myrdal (1969)—more specifically, “The goals of objectivity and effectiveness in research are honesty, clarity, and effectiveness” (p. 72). If the results of sociological research have been less than to the liking of policymakers and government and corporate leaders, then yet another of Myrdal’s insights is especially germane. That is,

Research is always and by logical necessity based on moral and political valuations, and the researcher should be obligated to account for them explicitly. When these valuations are brought out into the open any one who finds a particular piece of research to have been founded on what is considered wrong valuation can challenge it on that ground. (P. 74)

There are other reasons as well, reasons that complicate the delivery of the important message promoted by the discipline’s practitioners, for as noted by Joel Best (2003:11), sociology “is a perspective built on relativism, built on the recognition that people understand the world differently.” Indeed, many years earlier George C. Homans (1967) observed,

If some of the social sciences seem to have made little progress, at least in the direction of generalizing and explanatory science, the reason lies neither in lack of intelligence on the part of the scientists nor in the newness of the subject as an academic discipline. It lies rather in what is out there in the world of nature. (P. 89)

Such statements lie at the heart of the epistemological debate that began in the 1920s (see Reiss 1968:10–11) and continues into the modern era. Despite the vastness of sociological inquiry, it is obvious that a strong orientation toward the scientific study of human behavior, social interaction, and organizations continues and that this scientific focus is predicated on the assumption that such study is possible because it is based on the examination of phenomena that are subject to the operation of universal laws, a point not lost in the minds of the discipline’s founders. The counterpoint that the social sciences are cultural sciences and thereby fundamentally different from the physical sciences and also subject to different methodology and other evaluative criteria is representative of a longstanding European influence that also began in the 1920s.

Given the diversity and fluidity of the topics addressed and the levels of theories employed by sociologists, it is not surprising that many others do not agree. The counterargument is based on the premise that given the circumstances behind the evolution of science and the support it received in the past and the more repressive attention it receives in the contemporary experience from powerful interest groups, objective social science and the establishment of universal laws that are based on such inquiry may not be possible (see Turner 2001).

Whether or not one argues that the study of human society is unique, it is still extraordinary given the vast array of extant theories used to express the human experience and capacity. Witness the statement of one contemporary analyst who, in an intriguing assessment of the contemporary American “wilding” experience, wrote,

Sociology arose as an inquiry into the dangers of modern individualism, which could potentially kill society itself. The prospect of the death of society gave birth to the question . . . what makes society possible and prevents it from disintegrating into a mass of sociopathic and self-interested isolates? This core question of sociology has become the vital issue of our times. (Charles Derber 2003:18)

Only in part is Derber referring to the American experience. His assessment also speaks to the experience of Western Europe. Much social change has taken place, and the efforts of sociologists to describe and explain this change and to draw upon these insights to develop predictive models has led to a diversity of theories. Indeed, over time, the scientific paradigm shifts more generally described by Thomas Kuhn ([1962] 1970) are obvious in our discipline (see Friedrichs 1970). There have been, there are at present, and there undoubtedly will be future paradigm shifts within this evolving and apparently expanding discipline of sociology, many of which will focus, as has been the case in the past, on the social change process. And for all the so-called objectivity of a scientific sociology advocated by analysts such as George A. Lundberg (1947), the development of which is so eloquently described by Leon Bramson (1961)), sociologists have been involved in social activism and social engineering, that first occurred during the embryonic years of the discipline’s development (Volkart 1968). Such activism occurred again during the 1960s and 1970s, in many social justice areas, and in occupational settings such as those of the criminal justice system.

At present, sociological inquiry represents a vast array of topics and offers many competing theoretical models while its practitioners attempt to make sense of a rapidly changing world. For all its middle-range theories and studies that reflect the efforts of those dedicated to cumulative knowledge, it is also important that we recognize that the building of a paradigm as well as challenges to an extant paradigm are not relegated to the gathering of information alone. Indeed, if sociology is to advantage itself in the twenty-first century, it may be imperative that a dominant paradigm begins to identify the kinds of community needs that it can usually serve, for as Joseph R. Gusfield (1990) so clearly notes, sociology has been at odds with and a critic of the classical economic and individualistic interpretations of American life. Thus, whatever issues sociology may need to address at this juncture, perhaps we are hampered only by the limits of the sociological imagination. Again, the following comment by Homans (1967) is noteworthy:

The difficulties of social science lie in explanation rather than discovery. . . . Our trouble has not been with making discoveries but with organizing them theoretically—showing how they follow under a variety of given conditions from a few general principles. (Pp. 79, 105)

The present diversity of the discipline welcomed by so many social critics also serves as a barrier to the creation of a dominant theoretical paradigm. Without this focus, sociology remains in the minds of many of the discipline’s representatives a less-than-coherent discipline. Perhaps this is not different from the struggle of the 1960s as described by Gouldner (1970), a period that also was far less than organized and coherent and certainly far less civil in disagreement. It is important that sociologists take stock of their trade and question in earnest the utility of the work we do. As noted by Herbert L. Gans (1990),

By and large, we sociologists have been too distant from the society in which we operate and in which we are embedded, which funds us even if too poorly and which influences us surely more than we influence it. We are too busy trying to understand how that society functions . . . that we rarely think about our own functions—and dysfunctions. To some extent our failure to do so stems from a typical professional blindness, which results in our inability to distance ourselves sufficiently from ourselves and our routines to look systematically at what we are for and to whom. (Pp. 12–13)

Not all may agree, of course. Indeed, sociology in the United States and in Europe has been a critique of modern urban life with its emphasis on the individual, capitalism, and bureaucracy. In some instances, this critique of American society has been radical and reformist in its thrust (Gusfield 1990:31–46). And although American sociology had been shaped in part by psychology in establishing its methodology during the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, especially through a common socialpsychological area (see, e.g., Reiss 1968), it can be safely stated that American sociology has been transformed during the latter decades of the twentieth century.

Sociologists may be accused of engaging in an affair with their work. Witness the stirring comments of one colleague:

I fell in love with sociology when I was twelve. . . . Sociology was my savior. It saved me from the vexing confusion caused by my once despising the mundaneness of everyday life and deeply loving and admiring my people. It stabilized me by articulating the dedication that I felt for social justice. (Shahidian 1999:303–04)

We share this passionate approach to social science based on the insightful development of theory and empirical research, an approach that has, in turn, led to a vast array of subject matter. In light of these impressive contributions, the only aspect of this endeavor that may seem perplexing to some is that as we move further into the twenty-first century, there are those who continue to believe in and practice the scientific method; there also are those who argue that if the logic of science and the methods of scientific objectivity are to be carried to an extreme, sociology will lose or has already lost its humanistic perspective and, with this loss, the inclination toward active community involvement through social policy advocacy and practical intervention. As Peter L. Berger (1963) phrases it,

At the same time it is quite true that some sociologists, especially in America, have become so preoccupied with methodological questions that they have ceased to be interested in society at all. As a result, they have found out nothing of significance about any aspect of social life, since in science as in love a concentration on technique is quite likely to lead to impotence. (P. 13)

This dichotomy certainly is a matter of considerable debate, but perhaps most advocates and active practitioners of the discipline would fall somewhere in between these two orientations (see, e.g., Reiss 1968:10–11). In this regard, we are also optimistic that the sociological imagination will continue to be an important part of the work of sociologists as they take into consideration “a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves” (Mills 1959:5).

More than 170 years ago, sociology began to emerge from its philosophical and biological roots to it current status as an important social science. Early sociologists achieved renown based on their interest in providing information useful to appraise social policy issues. However, in the contemporary instance, there are strong indicators that sociology has not achieved the eminent position envisioned by the founders. Note the less-than-enthusiastic assessment offered by Black (1999):

The problems endemic to the discipline of sociology include the lack of a paradigm, disciplinary fragmentation, and the irreconcilability of science, ideology, and politics . . . and the lack of an occupational niche—[all these] place sociologists in the position of having constantly to defend the profession. (Pp. 261, 263)

Thus, as we move well into the twenty-first century, it is clear that sociology is engaged in yet another struggle to (re)identify itself. Perhaps such a struggle is to be expected of any science of human behavior. And nowhere is this situation more contentious than in the responses of representatives of the discipline to the question as to whether sociology is or is not yet considered an activity worthy of the label “scientific activity.”

At the center of this struggle lies the heart of any discipline—namely, sociological theory. Among the eminent theorists reporting on the status of sociology in this Handbook are individuals who represent the very best of what the discipline has to offer. That the message is suggestive of a continuing debate within the discipline is both disheartening and encouraging. It is disheartening in that after a period of more than 175 years, representatives of the discipline should be able to exclaim with great pride the accomplishments of so much activity instead of debating their scientific worth. It is encouraging because the current debate over the theory and the substance of the work sociologists engage in can only lead to the exploration of new and challenging frontiers. But the substance of sociological inquiry also represents a matter of contention for many research- and practitioner-oriented representatives of the discipline. Some contemporary analysts who have observed the developments within the academy during the past several decades call for a critical reevaluation of that which sociologists identify as the substance of research and understanding. Sociology has given birth to and generated intense interest in many areas of study that are no longer identified with the discipline. Because the specific subareas developed by sociologists became well accepted as legitimate applied disciplines within the academy, independent, overlapping units within the academy have been created.

If the 1960s represent the golden era of sociology, it is also a period, as described by Turner and Sica (2006), that is “remembered as a time of violence, massive social change, and personal transformation” (p. 4). The period had a profound effect on an entire generation of students, many of whom were instrumental in creating the new sociological emphasis that today is criticized for its diversity, the lack of continuity, and a failure to develop a unified paradigm. Whatever reservations that may continue to exist as we progress well into the twenty-first century, these can be hailed as a challenge. Thus, at the same time that community involvement and applied research are increasingly being devalued in the academic world, there is a distinct pressure, according to Harris and Wise (1998), for sociologists to become increasingly involved in the community and society.

This call to establish a public sociology may well combine with the three types of knowledge identified by Burawoy (2005)—the professional, critical, and policyspecific databases. In each of these areas, the initiative would be consistent with enthusiastic proclamations of the past. George A. Lundberg’s (1947) Can Science Save Us? serves as but one important example of those who promoted the application of social science insights to solve social problems. Of course, one major difference between the time when Lundberg wrote and now is that we are not rebounding from the tragedy of a world war. Indeed, it was during the post-World War II period and during the subsequent several decades that American sociology assumed its theoretical and empirical dominance (Odum 1951), especially in the area of deviant behavior (see Touraine 1990). Yet another important difference between then and now, as Harris and Wise (1998) suggest, is that sociologists need to be perceived as problem solvers rather than as social critics, and similar to the pleas of Marion Talbot (1896) at the end of the nineteenth century, much of the sociological may necessarily become interdisciplinary in nature. This perspective is supported as a portion of a more scholarly editorial philosophy articulated by Wharton (2006:1–2). Most noteworthy for our purpose are points three and four:

(3) Be aware and reflective about the . . . broader contributions to scholarship, policy, and/or activism . . . ; (4) produce useful knowledge—not merely in the applied sense of solving problems, but knowledge that is useful as basic research that can help people better understand and transform the social world. (P. 1)

These same kinds of issues—social activism and public policy research—were recognized at the end of the nineteenth century as strengths of the new discipline.

Thus, there appears to be hopeful as well as worrisome aspects of sociology at the end of the twentieth century (Lewis 1999). But this kind of enthusiasm and concern appears to be periodic throughout the history of the discipline as sociologists attempt to both define and then redefine the parameters of what some argue is too extensive a range of topics to allow practitioners of the discipline to be definitively identified (Best 2003). Witness the statement attributed to one of the coeditors of this Handbook who, in the early 1980s, wrote the following:

Future prospects for sociology(ists) no doubt will depend upon our ability to identify and respond to community needs, to compete for funds available from nontraditional sources, to work in applied areas, and to establish creative problemsolving strategies. The challenge before us should generate a healthy response. (Peck 1982:319–20)

Since that time and in the wake of a declining influence of the social sciences, there has been a response as evidenced by the many new areas of inquiry, many interdisciplinary in nature, that currently curry attention from sociologists. Indeed, there does appear to be a fragmentation, but this so-called fragmentation is consistent with an assessment offered by Beck (1999), “Sociology today, as throughout its history, is not unified. . . . we have never been able to sustain . . . unanimity and consistency for very long. Thank goodness” (p. 121).

Perhaps we do not engage in “normal science,” at least not in the sense that Thomas Kuhn ([1962] 1970) refers to it. That is, academic sociologists continue to function quite well even though they are outside the single frame of reference that usually serves as the paradigmatic foundation for the physical sciences. Normal science is rigid, but it is also burdened by uncertainty and inconsistency, as Friedrichs (1970) observes. In the case of sociology, this is found in the diversity of theoretical models and topical areas. Although some analysts lament the current state of the discipline, Jacobs (2004) recently observed that “some might view this diversity [of topics] as evidence of excessive fragmentation, (but) there are important theoretical connections” (p. v). Of course, the substance of manuscripts submitted for possible publication, the rubrics under which the research can be categorized, is quite different from the search for a common sociological paradigm. To wit, classic studies do exist, but none serve to forge a single paradigm. Thus, the future of the discipline will depend, as usual, on the contributions of those who may be relatively silent in the wake of less-than-acceptable “scholarship,” as suggested by Lewis (1999), but who nonetheless commit themselves to excellence by producing significant contributions to theory and application (see, e.g., Rossi 1999) that should, in the long run, counter the myriad productions that are less significant. Concomitant with this effort will be an increased awareness of and involvement in the applied and an earnest effort to again be a viable force in the policy-related aspects of sociology and society. In other words, we believe there will be a reawakening of and involvement in those aspects of sociology that served the discipline well during its early years of development in the United States (see Ross 1936) even as the applied social work-oriented practitioners broke away to form their own professional association (Odum 1951; Rossi 1999). Indeed, there exists a need for answers to myriad policy-oriented questions as well as applied concerns at all governmental levels.

But in the end, sociologists may, as Beck (1999:123) suggests, go where they go, where they want to go. This may again mean that sociologists will abandon important areas of inquiry that they helped to establish, leaving the sociological legacy to others. Sociologists will also move to create other areas of inquiry while questioning past and present assumptions and knowledge claims in an ongoing quest to better understand social arrangements and to engage in, as Beck (1999) observes, “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the sociological imagination” (p. 124). To this we can add the quest to establish the meaning of social justice in a rapidly changing democratic society.

Thus, contrary to dubious predictions of an ominous obscure future, the content of this Handbook attests to a much more positive and grand future orientation within the discipline that will include much more than the rigorous efforts to clean up conceptual problems that sociologists are supposedly noted for. Moreover, the epistemological debates of the past will undoubtedly continue as Turner (2001) and Best (2003) suggest, but in so doing, the future of academic sociology will again be broadened. This expansion will again, we think, involve the applied aspects of the discipline and engagement of the public through active involvement of sociologists in the four traditional areas—namely, through a public sociology with an emphasis on further development of the profession and a critical civic activism with the intent to broadly influence social policy. Moreover, the increasing influence of European sociology in the global community will undoubtedly continue; this influence is not only important, it is most welcome. Given the above, it may well be that another call to arms will result. There has been a movement, albeit a small movement, among highly regarded intellectuals (the National Association of Scholars) to enhance the substance and quality of academic teaching and scholarly activity. This, too, is welcome in sociology.

The world that engages a scientist, as noted by Friedrichs (1970), is one that emerges from a scientific tradition, along with its special vocabulary and grammar and environment. Sociology’s laboratory is the social world and on occasion its practitioners are criticized by those who argue the arcane nature of all that is considered scientific. If the normal science, as described by Thomas Kuhn ([1962] 1970) and Robert W. Friedrichs (1970), is to be realized within the discipline of sociology, then it may depend on efforts of young sociologists (see, e.g., Frickel and Gross 2005) who may capture the essence of such a paradigm in a general theory of scientific/intellectual movements. Such work may also serve to stimulate more thought as to the requisite initiatives essential for subsequently developing the kind of intellectual movement that will define once again, and actively promote, the substance of the sociological perspective.

If the emphasis of American sociology at the beginning of the twentieth century was unsophisticated, armchair science that “featured the study of general society and the ‘system’ of social theory, it reflected not only the almost universal philosophical approach but also the consistency of the best minds in interaction with European philosophy and American higher education” (Odum 1951:421–22). In the mid-twentieth century, sociology, similar to other social and physical sciences, struggled to determine whether the future of the discipline would continue to pursue a general systems theory of society or whether the discipline’s practitioners would develop more theory and then relate these theories to research and the scientific method (Odum 1951:422). At this critical midpoint of the century past, and in recognition of the importance of the discipline, Odum (1951) wrote that there is

the extraordinary need in the contemporary world for a social science to seek special knowledge of human society and welfare and meet the crises brought on by science and technology, so often out of perspective to human relations, and so to provide the basis for not only a social morale in an age of science but for societal survival as well. (P. 3)

At the end of the twentieth century, these comments rang clear, and as we move forward and well into the greater twenty-first-century experience, Odum’s words seem no less germane today than in the past.

Toward establishing the prospects for the future of this great academic discipline, we hasten to add how critical it is and will be to again acknowledge the important work of the founding mothers and fathers of sociology. Thus, at the end of the twentieth century, the state of sociology may have been debatable, but during the initial decades of the twenty-first century, sociologists will undoubtedly take up the challenge to pursue answers to vexing social problems that are, as Fine (2006:14–15) states, embedded with complex, dynamic, interconnected social systems. Some of the solutions to be tendered in the near future may not serve well the needs of all citizens, but these should nonetheless address policy issues relating to social freedom, social justice, and social equality while recognizing that such policies determine the behavior of those actors whom sociologists are intent to study. Herein American sociologists may now have achieved the requisite disciplinary maturity to employ the kind of sociological imagination envisioned by C. Wright Mills (1959) half a century ago. Such a sociology would, in the tradition of Europe, encompass a biography and history within society, thereby allowing sociology to represent not only a scientific enterprise but also to serve as a sensitizing discipline that allows us to continue to view the world in a new and interpretive fashion.

Finally, in some peculiar ways, the vexing problems that capture our attention during the early portion of the twenty-first century parallel those of the early twentieth century; this is true at all levels of society and perhaps even more so within those sectors that heretofore were barricaded from a critical analyses. The actors may have changed but, in general, the public concerns regarding the kinds of behavior tolerated and considered to be appropriate tend to remain the same. And as the moral entrepreneurs of the twenty-first century push their agendas, the new prohibitionist movements continue to capture the attention of policymakers, which may of necessity be cause for some sociologists at least to revisit many of the same topics that held sway in the past. Thus, we will continue to use templates in our lives to understand the world, physical and social, in which we exist. The sociological templates derived from the many conceptual constructs available provide us with a unique and perceptive perspective. As sociology further develops, new conceptual constructs will be added and will contribute to its unique perspective, thereby enhancing our ability to better analyze and understand human social behavior.

Bibliography:

• Beck, Bernard. 1999. “The Future of Sociology.” Sociological Inquiry 69:121–29.
• Berger, Peter L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Bernard, L. L. and Jessie Bernard. 1943. Origins of American Sociology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
• Best, Joel. 2001. Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Best, Joel. 2003. “Killing the Messenger: The Social Problems of Sociology.” Social Problems 50:1–13.
• Black, Timothy. 1999. “Going Public: How Sociology Might Matter Again.” Special Section: Saving Sociology (Part II) Sociological Inquiry 690:257–75.
• Bramson, Leon. 1961. The Political Context of Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70:4–28.
• Calhoun, Arthur W. 1919. A Social History of the American Family: From Colonial Times to the Present. 3. Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark.
• Crothers, Charles. 2001. “History of Sociology.” Pp. 1550–52 in Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences, edited by J. Michie. Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn.
• Derber, Charles. 2003. The Wilding of America: Money, Mayhem, and the New American Dream. New York: Worth.
• Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1968. “The Development of Sociological Thought.” Pp. 23–36 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
• Fine, Gary Alan. 2006. “The Chaining of Social Problems: Solution, and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal.” Social Problems 53:3–17.
• Frickel, Scott and Neil Gross. 2005. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements.” American Journal of Sociology 70:204–32.
• Friedrichs, Robert W. 1970. A Sociology of Sociology. New York: Free Press.
• Gans, Herbert J., ed. 1990. Sociology in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Goudsblom, J. and J. Heilbron. 2001. “History of Sociology.” Pp. 14574–80 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Gouldner, Alvin W. 1970. The Coming Crisis in Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books.
• Gusfield, Joseph R. 1990. “Sociology’s Effects on Society.” Pp. 31–46 in Sociology in America, edited by H. J. Gans. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Harris, Catherine and Michael Wise. 1998. “Grassroots Sociology and the Future of the Discipline.” American Sociologist Winter:29–47.
• Hollander, Paul. 1999. “Saving Sociology?” Sociological Inquiry 69:130–47.
• Homans, George C. 1967. The Nature of Social Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
• Jacobs, Jerry A. 2004. “ASR: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.” American Sociological Review 69:v–vi.
• Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Kurtz, Lester R. 1986. Evaluating Chicago Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Lecuyer, Bernard and Anthony R. Oberschall. 1968. “The Early History of Social Research.” Pp. 36–52 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
• Lee, Alfred McClung. 1978. Sociology for Whom? New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lengermann, Patricia Madoo and Jill Niebrugge-Brantley. 1998. The Women Founders: Sociology and Social Theory, 1830–1930. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
• Lewis, Michael. 1999. “Introduction: Saving Sociology (Part I).” Sociological Inquiry 69:106–109.
• Lundberg, George A. 1947. Can Science Save Us? New York: David McKay.
• MacIver, R. M. 1934. “Sociology.” Pp. 232–46 in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by E. R. A. Seligman and A. Johnson. New York: Macmillan.
• Madge, John. 1962. The Origins of Scientific Sociology. New York: Free Press.
• Martineau, Harriet. 1836/1837 . Society in America. London, England: Saunders & Otley .
• Martineau, Harriet. 1838. How to Observe Morals and Manners. London, England: Charles Knight.
• Merton, Robert K. [1957] 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
• Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Myrdal, Gunnar. 1969. Objectivity in Social Research. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Nisbet, Robert A. 1966. The Sociological Tradition. New York: Basic Books.
• Noble, David F. 1999. The Religion of Technology. New York: Penguin Putnam.
• Odum, Howard W. 1951. American Sociology: The Story of Sociology in the United States through 1950. New York: Longmans, Green.
• Odum, Howard W. [1927] 1965. American Masters of Social Science. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press.
• O’Neill, William L. 1967. Divorce in the Progressive Era. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Peck, Dennis L. 1982. “Future Prospects for Sociology(ists): Observations of a Non-Rural Sociologist.” The Rural Sociologist 2:315–21 .
• Reiss, Albert J. 1968. “Sociology: The Field.” Pp. 1–22 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by D. L. Sills. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
• Ross, E. A. 1936. “Some Contributions of Sociology to the Guidance of Society.” American Sociological Review 1:29–32.
• Rossi, Peter H. 1999. “Saving Academic Sociology.” Sociological Inquiry 69:110–20.
• Shahidian, Hammed. 1999. “Saving the Savior.” Sociological Inquiry 69:303–27.
• Small, A. W. 1895. “The Era of Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 1:1–15.
• Smelser, Neil J. 1990. “External Influences on Sociology.” Pp. 49–60 in Sociology in America, edited by H. J. Gans. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Talbot, Marion. 1896. “Sanitation and Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 2:74–81.
• Touraine, Alain. 1990. “American Sociology Viewed from Abroad.” Pp. 239–52 in Sociology in America, edited by H. J. Gans. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 2001. “Sociology, Survey.” Pp. 1538–50 in Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences, edited by J. Michie. Chicago, IL: Fitzroy Dearborn.
• Turner, Stephen and Alan Sica. 2006. “Two Scholars Examine Golden Decade’s Imprint on Today’s Sociologists.” Footnotes 34(2):4.
• Volkart, E. H. 1968. “Thomas, W. I.” Pp. 1–6 in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 16, edited by D. L. Sills. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
• Ward, Lester A. 1896. “Contributions to Social Philosophy. IX. The Purpose of Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 2:446–60.
• Wharton, Amy S. 2006. “Letter from the Editor.” Social Problems 59:1–2.
• Whitt, Hugh P. 2001. “The Moral Statisticians” Pp. 229–35 in Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior, Historical, Conceptual, and Theoretical Issues, 1, edited by P. A. Adler, P. Adler, and J. Corzine. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-Routledge.
• Wright, Carroll D. 1895. “Contributions of the United States Government to Social Science.” American Journal of Sociology 1(3):241–75.
• Wrong, Dennis H. 1990. “Sociology’s Effects on America.” Pp. 19–30 in Sociology in America, edited by H. J. Gans. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Introduction

Chapter outline.

A busy commuter train station might seem like a very individualized place. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of strangers flow through with a singular purpose: to get where they need to go. Whether walking through main doors at a pace of a dozen people each second, or arriving by train hundreds at a time, the station can feel a bit like a balloon being pumped too full. Throngs of people cluster in tight bottlenecks until they burst through corridors and stairways and tunnels to reach the next stage of their journey. In some stations, walking against the crowd can be a tedious, nearly impossible process. And cutting across a river of determined commuters can be almost dangerous. Things are fast, relentless, and necessary.

But are those hundred thousand or half a million or, in the case of Tokyo’s Shinjuku station, 3.5 million people really acting individually? It may seem surprising, but even with those numbers, strangers from across cities can synch up on the same schedules, use the same doors, take one leg of the trip together every day before separating into different directions. After just a few months, faces can become familiar, and senses can be tuned. An experienced commuter can tell where another person is going according to their pace and whatever announcement just went out; they may slow up a bit to let the other person pass, or hold a door open just a bit longer than usual, certain that someone will grab the handle behind them. Many regulars don’t need to check the schedule board; they sense whether a train is running late or whether a track has changed simply by the movement of the crowd.

And then the customs develop: Which side to walk on, how fast to go, where to stand, how much space to leave between people on the escalator. When you board early, which seat should you take? When you see someone running for the train, do you jam the closing door with your foot? How does the crowd treat people who ask for food or money? What’s the risk level in telling someone to be quiet?

Very few of these behaviors are taught. None are written down. But the transit hub, that pocket of constant flow, is an echo of its society. It takes on some aspects of the city and country around it, but its people also form an informal group of their own. Sociologists, as you will learn, may study these people. Sociologists may seek to understand how they feel about their trip, be it proud or annoyed or just plain exhausted. Sociologists might study how length of commute relates to job satisfaction or family relationships. They may study the ways that conditions of a train station affect attitudes about government, or how the difficulty of commuting may lead people to relocate. This understanding isn’t just a collection of interesting facts; it can influence government policy and spending decisions, employer interventions, and healthcare practices. The work sociologists do to understand our society, and the work you will do in learning about it, is meaningful to our lives and our futures.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 25 May 2024

Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures

• Julia M. Wittmayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4738-6276 1 , 2 ,
• Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang 3 ,
• Kristina Bogner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1871-9828 4 ,
• Evan Boyle 5 ,
• Katharina Hölscher 6 ,
• Timo von Wirth 2 , 7 ,
• Tessa Boumans 2 ,
• Jilde Garst 8 ,
• Yogi Hale Hendlin 9 ,
• Mariangela Lavanga   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-9509 10 ,
• Derk Loorbach 1 ,
• Neha Mungekar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4663-0716 1 , 2 ,
• Mapula Tshangela 11 ,
• Pieter Vandekerckhove 12 &
• Ana Vasques 13  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  677 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

541 Accesses

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers’ practical knowledge ‘in situ’. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around ‘how to’ as well as ‘what is the right thing to do’. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.

Similar content being viewed by others

A tool for reflecting on research stances to support sustainability transitions

Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research

Intentional Ecology: Integrating environmental expertise through a focus on values, care and advocacy

Introduction.

There is a growing recognition that current research has failed to adequately address persistent societal challenges, which are complex, uncertain, and evaluative in nature (Ferraro et al., 2015 ; Loorbach et al., 2017 ; Saltelli et al., 2016 ). Along with this recognition come calls for science to help address these increasingly urgent and complex challenges faced at a global and local level, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, or social inequalities (Future Earth, 2014 ; Parks et al., 2019 ; WBGU, 2011 ). This call is echoed from within academia (Bradbury et al., 2019 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; Norström et al., 2020 ) and has also translated into corresponding research funding (Arnott et al., 2020 ; Gerber et al., 2020 ; Vermeer et al., 2020 ). The fundamental premise is that addressing complex societal challenges requires more than disciplinary knowledge alone and extends beyond the confines of academia (Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). That is, addressing them necessitates interactive knowledge co-production and social learning with societal actors to produce actionable and contextually embedded knowledge for societal transformations (Chambers et al., 2021 ; Hessels et al., 2009 ; Schäpke et al., 2018 ). This trend has prompted a (re)surge of socially engaged approaches to research, including transdisciplinary research, phronetic social sciences, participatory research, action- and impact-oriented research, and transformative research. These approaches involve collaboration between academics and various societal stakeholders, such as policymakers, communities, enterprises, and civil society organisations.

However, often, such socially engaged research approaches are at odds with the institutional traditions designed for monodisciplinary knowledge production. Transformative research, for instance, does not claim an objective observer position; instead, it explicitly embraces a normative orientation. Its goal, as many have argued, is to facilitate transformative societal change towards justice and sustainability by recognising and addressing the deep and persistent socio-ecological challenges inherent in our current society (Mertens, 2007 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). This motive to transform existing systems through collaborative research, in our view, obliges researchers to be more critical and vigilant in their decisions (Fazey et al., 2018 ). As we will present later in this paper, many of these decisions constitute ethical dilemmas, such as who decides what ‘good’ research is, whose knowledge to prioritise, or who should engage and under which circumstances. These ethical dilemmas are only poorly addressed by the ethical review processes in place at most universities, which remain dominated by linear and positivist framings of knowledge production and research design (Wood and Kahts-Kramer, 2023 ). Consequently, transformative researchers are often left struggling to choose “ between doing good (being ethically responsive to the people being researched) and doing good research (maintaining pre-approved protocols) ” (Macleod et al., 2018 , p. 10). The translation of the values and principles of transformative research into formal and informal ethical guidelines is only starting (Caniglia et al., 2023 ; Fazey et al., 2018 ; West and Schill, 2022 ).

Confronting these ethical dilemmas calls for greater reflexivity and dialogue with ourselves, among researchers, between researchers and their collaborators (including funders and professionals), and between researchers and the institutions within which they operate (Finlay, 2002 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Attesting to this call, the authors of this paper engaged in a ‘collaborative autoethnography’ (Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara & Fukao, 2022 ; Phillips et al., 2022 ) to explore the following research question: Which ethical dilemmas do researchers face in research collaborations that seek to catalyse transformations? And how do they navigate these in their collaborative practice? Thus, as an interdisciplinary group of researchers affiliated with academic research institutes, we shared, compared, and discussed our experiences concerning ethical dilemmas in our transformative research endeavours. In these discussions, we considered our interactions, engagements, and relationships with collaborators along with how institutional rules and norms influence or constrain our practices and relations.

This paper begins with an overview of transformative research and the challenges that arise when working collaboratively. It also testifies to the formal and informal attempts to support researchers in navigating those challenges (“Ethics in transformative research”). From there, we develop the argument that formal or informal guidelines are most meaningful when they have become a part of the practical wisdom of researchers. When they are, they support researchers in leaning into the uncertainty of what constitutes morally good behaviour and in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’. Inspired by Mertens ( 2017 ), we relate our own dilemmas to the three philosophical commitments that comprise a research paradigm: axiology, ontology, and epistemology (“Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography”, also for an elaboration of the terms). We share concrete dilemmas while embedding and relating them to a broader body of knowledge around similar dilemmas and questions (“Collaboration in transformative research practice”). We close the paper by pointing to the importance of bottom-up ethics and the need to embed those into revalued and redesigned ethical standards, processes, and assessments that can provide external guidance and accountability (“Concluding thoughts”).

Ethics in transformative research

In this section, we first introduce transformative research (TR) in terms of its underlying values and its ontological and epistemological premises (Mertens, 2007 , 2017 ) (“Introducing transformative research”). We then connect it to its institutional context, where ethical standards and procedures fit the linear production of knowledge, leading to tensions with TR practices (“Institutional context: Formal ethical standards and processes”). Finally, we outline how the research community tries to address this misfit and the felt need for understanding what constitutes morally ‘right’ behaviour by providing peer guidance on the ethical conduct of TR (“Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research”).

Introducing transformative research

TR refers to a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions (Hölscher et al., 2021 ; Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Mertens, 2021 ; Schneidewind et al., 2016 ; Wittmayer et al., 2021 ). Transformative researchers thus start from the basic premise that “ all researchers are essentially interveners ” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 63). Consequently, they are explicit about the kind of normative orientation of their interventions to further a social justice and environmental sustainability agenda. There is no denying the fact that such research approaches can also be used with a different normative mindset and value orientation, which will have other ethical consequences.

TR builds on methodological and theoretical pluralism that knits together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ; Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Midgley, 2011 ). As such, it also comes as a diverse phenomenon, and where such diversity is “ not haphazard […] we must be cautious about developing all-embracing standards to differentiate the ‘good’ from the ‘bad ’” (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 , p. 783). Such an ontological stance involves letting go of the idea of absolute truth and the need to tightly control the research process and outcomes (van Breda and Swilling, 2019 ). Instead, TR encourages continuous societal learning to generate actionable knowledge and transformative action that manifests in real-world changes in behaviours, values, institutions, etc. (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Hölscher et al., 2021 ). In doing so, TR is often based upon pragmatist assumptions about the ways knowledge and action inform one another, generating contingent knowledge in a process of action and experimentation (Harney et al., 2016 ; Popa et al., 2015 ). The research process serves as a means to assess ideas in practical application, blending a critical realist stance on socially constructed reality with acknowledging subjectivism and the existence of multiple realities (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ).

TR also represents an epistemological shift from the notion of the distanced, presumably unbiased, and all-knowing researcher and recognises individuals as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents (Horcea-Milcu et al., 2022 ; Hurtado, 2022 ). Collaboration enables the elicitation of different kinds of knowledge, including scientific knowledge across disciplines as well as phronetic and tacit knowledge from practice. It aims at capturing the plurality of knowing and doing that is relevant to specific contexts and actors (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016 ; Nugroho et al., 2018 ; Pohl, 2008 ). This sort of mutual social learning supports joint sense-making and experimental processes. These then invite us to rethink existing situations, (re)define desired futures, and (re)position short-term action (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2019 ). The co-creation of knowledge and action can increase ownership, legitimacy, and accountability and can help facilitate trust-building among diverse societal groups (Hessels et al., 2009 ; Lang et al., 2012 ). The latter is an essential ingredient for tackling complex societal problems during times of discrediting science and the rise of populist, antidemocratic movements (Saltelli et al., 2016 ).

Institutional context: formal ethical standards and processes

The institutional environment is challenging for researchers engaging in TR for multiple reasons; one challenge is the formal ethical standards and processes. Current approaches to ethical assessment in social science emerged from several international conventions in the field of medical ethics (BMJ, 1996 ; General Assembly of the World Medical Association, 2014 ; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioural Research, 1979 ). Most formal research ethics reviews adopt the four principles of Beauchamp and Childress ( 2001 ), which include: (1) non-maleficence by attempting to not harm others; (2) respect for autonomy by attempting to provide information about the research that allows decisions to be taken; (3) beneficence by attempting to achieve useful outcomes outweighing the risks of participation; and (4) justice by attempting fairness in participation and distribution of benefits. These principles have found their way into formal ethical reviews, often practicing value-neutral and utilitarian ethics. This approach is debatable for TR approaches (Detardo-Bora, 2004 ) and seems more effective at protecting research institutions (foregrounding bureaucratically controllable compliance) than research participants (Christians, 2005 ). Indeed, many engaged in TR have raised concerns that neither these principles nor their formal translation account for the particularity, situatedness, epistemic responsibilities, and relationality that are key to the conduct and ethics of TR (Cockburn and Cundill, 2018 ; Lincoln, 2001 ; Parsell et al., 2014 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). In the following paragraphs, we highlight several tensions between the understanding of research, as it informs many ethical standards in place, and an understanding of TR.

First, a pre-defined versus an emerging research design. Due to its real-world orientation, TR needs to be able to deal flexibly with changing contexts and windows of opportunity that might arise (Hurtado, 2022 ). Due to the relationality of TR, it requires ongoing interaction and negotiation between researchers and their collaborators (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Bournot-Trites and Belanger, 2005 ; Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). One-off general consent at the start (e.g., through informed consent forms), as is common for ethical review processes, is thus at odds with the emergent design of TR and is also argued to be insufficient in maintaining participants’ autonomy (Smith, 2008 ). As an alternative, Locke et al. ( 2013 ) posit that informed consent should be seen as a collective, negotiated, continuous process, especially in collaborative action research.

Second, assumed neutrality versus dynamic aspects of researchers’ positionalities. Ethical review protocols are geared towards upholding the objective position of researchers as outsiders in the investigated context, ensuring that they will not influence this research context in any way. However, TR explicates its ambition to influence real-world problems through engagement, acknowledging that research needs to confront existing hegemonic orders and emancipate those involved through a democratic process (Cassell and Johnson, 2006 ). Furthermore, researchers co-design, facilitate, and participate in the process of knowledge co-production, making them also participants and subjects of their own research (Janes, 2016 ). To enhance the validity and integrity of the research, Wood, and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 ), among others, suggest that transformative researchers explicitly state their positionality. This involves reflecting on their assumptions, values, and worldviews.

Third, the primacy of knowledge generation versus the importance of action. Ethical review protocols, given their historical roots in medical practice, assume that the act of falsifying, generating, or improving theories alone would benefit participants, collaborators, and the public at large. Yet, researchers engaged in TR take a step further, seeking to develop both scientific and actionable knowledge in a way that addresses persistent societal problems and stimulates social change (Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ; Caniglia et al., 2021 ; Greenwood and Levin, 2007 ). As put by Wood and Kahts-Kramer ( 2023 , p. 7), “ the ethical imperative of participatory research is to bring about positive change and generate theory from reflection on the purposeful action ”. This approach strengthens the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ).

Transformative researchers thus perceive a lack of utility and guidance from ethical standards and processes in place that have institutionalised a certain understanding of research and related sets of principles. Following Clouser and Gert ( 1990 ), one might question whether such institutionalisation of a moral consciousness is possible in the first place. They argue that so-called ‘principlism,’ “ the practice of using ‘principles’ to replace both moral theory and particular moral rules and ideals in dealing with the moral problems that arise in medical practice ” (Clouser and Gert, 1990 , p. 219), has reduced the much-needed debates on morality vis-à-vis research and results in inconsistent and ambiguous directives for morally ‘right’ action in practice. In response to the vacuum left by institutionalised ethics standards and processes and the perceived necessity of defining morally ‘right’ behaviour, the research community is turning inward to develop peer guidance on ethical conduct in TR. The subsequent section highlights several contributions to this endeavour.

Peer context: Informal heuristics for transformative research

Transformative researchers have started offering general principles or frameworks as informal heuristics for what constitutes ‘ethical’ TR. Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, argue that practical wisdom can serve as a moral compass in complex knowledge co-production contexts, and propose four central ‘wills’ for researchers to follow: committing to justice, embracing care, fostering humility, and developing courage. Under the framing of post-normal or Mode-2 science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994 ; Gibbons et al., 1994 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ), Fazey et al. ( 2018 ) present ten ‘essentials’ of action-oriented research on transforming energy systems and climate change research Footnote 1 . One of these essentials highlights that, as researchers, we intervene, and that failing to acknowledge and engage with this reality opens the doors to sustaining unjust power relations or positioning science as apolitical. To address this, they echo Lacey et al.’s ( 2015 , p. 201) assertion that such acknowledgment means “ be[ing] transparent and accountable about the choices made about what science is undertaken, and how it is funded and communicated ”.

Looking beyond sustainability scholarship, other researchers have also developed practical actions or strategies for enhancing their ethical behaviours in the research collaboration. Taking the unique attributes of community-based participatory research, Kwan and Walsh ( 2018 , p. 382) emphasise a “ focus on equity rather than equality ” and on practicing a constructive or generative use of power “ rather than adopting a power neutral or averse position ”. Others provide guiding questions to think about the forms and quality of relationships between researchers and participants (Rowan, 2000 ) and to support the navigation of the relationship between action research and other participants (Williamson and Prosser, 2002 ). Such questions should cover not only process-focused questions but also the risks and benefits of the intended outcomes, as well as questions around purpose, motivation, and directionalities (Stilgoe et al., 2013 ). Others also propose broader guidelines in which they pay attention to non-Western and non-human-centred virtue ethics, such as ‘Ubuntu’ (I am because we are) (Chilisa, 2020 ). In forwarding climate change as a product of colonisation, Gram-Hanssen et al. ( 2022 ) join Donald’s ( 2012 ) call for an ethical relationality and reiterate the need to ground all transformation efforts on a continuous process of embodying ‘right relations’ (see also Chilisa, 2020 ; Wilson, 2020 ).

Yet, as argued before, ethics in collaboration cannot be approached through developing principles and strategies alone. Not only might they not be at hand or on top of one’s mind when being immersed in a collaborative practice, which often requires a certain reaction on the spot. They also cannot or should not replace the quest for what morality means within that collaboration (cf. Clouser and Gert, 1990 ). Further questions have been prompted about the necessary skillsets for realising ethical principles in practice (Jaeger-Erben et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; West and Schill, 2022 ). Caniglia et al. ( 2023 ), for example, propose that researchers need skills such as dealing with plural values with agility and traversing principles and situations with discernment. Others focus on competency building among research participants (Menon and Hartz-Karp, 2023 ). The subsequent section turns to the point of supporting researchers in navigating collaboration ‘in situ’ and in leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes—in concrete TR contexts that are plural and uncertain.

Transformative research practice investigated through collaborative autoethnography

Transformative research as a situated practice.

The aforementioned institutionalised ethical standards and procedures, as well as the informal peer heuristics, are two vantage points for guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour for transformative researchers. These existing vantage points are either developed based on theoretical and philosophical framings or based on researchers’ actual experiences of doing TR. They do offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions in ethical dilemmas during research collaborations. However, it is not until such heuristics or principles have become part of the practical knowledge of researchers that they are useful for actual TR in situ.

Considering research more as a practice situates it as a social activity in a ‘real-world context’. In such a practice, researchers often make decisions on the spot. Moreover, due to the constraints posed by available time and resources, researchers often engage in what Greenwood and Levin ( 2007 , p. 130) term “ skilful improvisation ” or “ pragmatic concessions ” (Greenwood and Levin, 2007 , p. 85). This “ improvisational quality ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 70) of the research process does not mean it is not carried out systematically. Such systematicity is based on “ action repertoires ” (Yanow, 2006 , p. 71) that researchers creatively use and remake (Malkki, 2007 ). This improvisation is thus neither spontaneous nor random; rather, it builds on and is based on the practical knowledge of researchers (formed through their experiences and their situatedness) guiding their behaviours in normatively complex situations. Using ‘organic design’ (Haapala et al., 2016 ), the researchers blend real-world settings into formal spaces, fostering bricolage and driving sustainable institutional evolution over time. Such practical knowledge includes “ both ‘know how’ knowledge (techne), […] and ethical and political-practical knowledge (phronesis)” (Fazey et al., 2018 , p. 61). Research can thus be considered a craft (Wittmayer, 2016 ): the skilful mastery of which develops over time through learning based on experience and reflection (Kolb, 1984 ).

Such experiential learning should go beyond reflecting on what lies in view to include seeing how attributes of the viewer shape what is being viewed (cf. Stirling, 2006 ). Engaging in TR includes being one’s own research instrument, which puts a researcher’s positionality, i.e., their social, cultural, and political locations, centre stage. It reminds us that researchers are “ located within networks of power and participate in the (re)configuration of power relations ” (Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 , p. 74). This positionality, the sum of what makes a person and how this informs their actions (Haraway, 1988 ; Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ; Marguin et al., 2021 ), is increasingly being acknowledged in academia. It has a long history in feminist theories, participatory action research, and the critical pedagogy of decolonisation. Positionality refers to the “ researcher’s self-understanding and social vision ” (Coghlan and Shani, 2005 , p. 539) as well as their motivation to ‘better society’ (Boyle et al., 2023 ; Kump et al., 2023 ) and how these affect how researchers interpret ethical guidelines, conduct research, interpret data, and present findings. Consequently, one’s positionality can make certain research choices seem unethical. Mertens ( 2021 , p. 2), for example, considers “ continuing to do research in a business-as-usual manner” unethical as it makes the researcher “ complicit in sustaining oppression ”.

Acknowledging one’s positionality and normative role is part of a broader reflexive practice of critically questioning, reflecting on, and being transparent about values, as well as taking responsibility and accountability for research processes and outcomes (Fazey et al., 2018 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). Such a reflexive practice can support individual researchers to act ethically, but more so, to improve our collective ways of being and doing (i.e., an ethically informed research community) by constantly connecting what should be (i.e., the guidelines) and how it has been done (i.e., the practices) through critical reflexive practices. This improvement at the collective level includes a re-valuation and redesign of existing processes and guidelines for morally good research.

A collaborative autoethnography

Responding to this need for critical reflexivity, we engaged with our storied experience in navigating concrete and immediate ethical dilemmas that we have encountered when collaborating with others for TR in practice. We did so through collaborative autoethnography, a multivocal approach in which two or more researchers work together to share personal stories and interpret the pooled autoethnographic data (Chang et al., 2016 ; Lapadat, 2017 ; Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ). Collaborative autoethnography is appropriate for our inquiry as it broadens the gaze from the dilemmas of the self to locate them within categories of experience shared by many. Interrogating our personal narratives and understanding the shared experiences through multiple lenses not only facilitates a more rigorous, polyvocal analysis but also reveals possibilities for practical action or intervention (Lapadat, 2017 ). Collaborative auto-ethnography can thus be considered an approach that moves “ beyond the clichés and usual explanations to the point where the written memories come as close as they can make them to ‘an embodied sense of what happened’ ” (Davies and Gannon, 2006 , p. 3). It also supports developing researcher reflexivity (Miyahara and Fukao, 2022 ).

Overall, we engaged in two types of collaborative activities over the course of a period of 18 months: writing and discussing. In hindsight, this period can be divided into three phases: starting up, exploring, and co-working. The first phase was kicked off by an online dialogue session with about 30 participants convened by the Design Impact Transition Platform of the Erasmus University Rotterdam in April 2022. The session was meant to explore and share experiences with a wide range of ethical dilemmas arising from TR collaboration in practice. Following this session, some participants continued deliberating on the questions and dilemmas raised in differing constellations and developed the idea of codifying and sharing our experiences and insights via a publication. In a second phase, we started writing down individual ethical dilemmas, both those we had discussed during the seminar and additional ones. These writings were brought together in an online shared file, where we continued our discussions. This was accompanied by meetings in differing constellations and of differing intensity for the researchers involved.

A third phase of intense co-work was framed by two broader online sessions. During a session in May 2023, we shared and discussed a first attempt at an analysis and sense-making of our individual dilemmas. During this session, we discerned the heuristic by Mertens et al. (2017) and discussed how it could be helpful in structuring our different experiences. Inspired by Mertens et al. (2017), we re-engaged with the three critical dimensions of any research paradigm to scrutinise our philosophical commitments to doing TR. A re-engagement with issues of axiology (the nature of ethics and values), ontology (the nature of reality), and epistemology (the nature of knowledge), as illustrated in Table 1 , allowed us to reconcile our ethical dilemmas and opened a space for a more nuanced understanding and bottom-up approach to the ethics of collaboration in TR. In moving forward, the heuristic also helped to guide the elicitation of additional dilemmas. This session kicked off a period of focused co-writing leading up to a second session in December 2023, where we discussed writing progress and specifically made sense of and related the ethical dilemmas to existing literature and insights.

Especially in this last phase, as we interacted dialogically to analyse and interpret the collection of storied experiences of ethical dilemmas, our thinking about the ethics of collaboration has evolved. It went beyond considering the inadequacy of institutional rules and how we navigated those, towards acknowledging their interplay with individual positionality and a researcher’s situated practice. Closer attention to the contexts within which the ethical dilemmas have arisen has led us to return to our philosophical commitments as transformative researchers and reflect on our assumptions about collaboration and research from a transformative standpoint.

The author team thus comprises a high proportion of those participating in the initial session, as well as others who joined the ensuing collective interpretation and analysis resulting in this paper. An important characteristic of the authors is that we are all affiliated with academic research institutions and that all but one of these institutions are based in high-income countries. It is in this context that we have shared our experiences, which is also limited by it. As such, this paper will mainly speak to other researchers affiliated with academic institutions in comparable settings. Acknowledging these limitations, we are from different (inter)disciplinary backgrounds Footnote 2 , nationalities, and work in different national settings and urban and rural locations. This diversity of contexts impacts the constellation of ethical dilemmas that we were faced with. We thus synthesise lessons from disparate yet still limited contexts, whilst remaining cognisant of the ungeneralisable nature of such a study.

Collaboration in transformative research practice

At the heart of our collaborative autoethnographic experience was the sharing and sensemaking of ethical dilemmas. In this section, we share those dilemmas (see Tables 2 – 4 ) clustered along the three philosophical commitments that served to deepen the analysis and interpretation of our storied experience. We embed our dilemmas with the broader body of knowledge around similar issues to discuss ways forward for practical knowledge around ‘what is good’ TR practice and ‘how to’ navigate ethical dilemmas.

Axiological dimension

Axiology is the study of value, which concerns what is considered ‘good’, what is valued, and most importantly, what ‘ought to be’. The axiological standpoint of TR is to address persistent societal problems and to contribute to transitions towards more just and sustainable societies. The commitment to knowledge development and transformative actions is also shaped by different personal judgements, disciplinary traditions, and institutional contexts. Together, these raise ethical concerns around the shape and form of research collaborations, the research lines being pursued, and where and for whom the benefits of the research accrue. Table 2 provides the details of the ethical dilemmas (described as encounters) that we discuss in the following.

Taking up a transformative stance goes hand in hand with individual researchers holding different roles at the same time (Hoffmann et al., 2022 ; Horlings et al., 2020 ; Jhagroe, 2018 ; Schut et al., 2014 ). Often resulting from this, they also perceive a wide range of responsibilities towards diverse groups (stakeholders, peers, the academic community, etc.). This is why transformative researchers face questions of who is responsible for what and whom in front of whom, and these questions influence and are influenced by what they consider the ‘right’ thing to do in relation to others in a collaborative setting. As a result, their axiological position is constructed intersubjectively in and through interactions unfolding in the communities of important others. It is thus relational and may differ depending on ‘the other’ in the research collaboration (Arrona & Larrea, 2018 ; Bartels and Wittmayer, 2018 ). Encounter 1 illustrates this through a constellation of the research collaboration that holds the potential to become a conflict of interest.

Such conflicts of interest can also occur in the very choice of which ‘community’ is being considered as the main beneficiary of the collaboration. The emphasis on action in TR, especially with regards to the principles of beneficence and justice that we mentioned in “Ethics in transformative research”, can increase this dilemma. Researchers are to continuously evaluate their (perceived) obligations. This includes, for example, obligations towards the scientific community (contributions to the academic discourse via publications) vs. obligations towards stakeholders (being a provider of free practical advice or consultant) vs. scientific requirements (academic rigour and independence) vs. stakeholder requests (answering practical questions). Researchers have to position themselves in this contested field of what ‘good research’ and ‘useful outcomes’ mean and sometimes question or challenge their peers or the academic system at large (see also Kump et al., 2023 ). This is the very question raised by Encounter 2 , where researchers are forced to decide which stakeholders’ values and needs should be prioritised in transforming clinical practice and improving the lives of patients.

Moreover, a similar prioritisation between the interests of different groups needs to be made between whether to create knowledge according to traditional scientific standards of systematicity and rigour or supporting collaborators in developing usable knowledge. This is surely a dilemma that arises from being embedded in an institutional context that judges according to different standards, but it also arises from the double commitment of TR to knowledge development and transformative action (Bartels et al., 2020 ). Huang et al. ( 2024 ) for example show how axiological assumptions serve as the base from which different notions of research excellence (e.g., scientific rigour, ‘impactful’ scholarship) are operationalised and supported institutionally. Encounter 3 reflects a similar dilemma as the lecturer juggles conflicting priorities that are inherent to the axiological concerns of TR. That is, can the goals of knowledge development in the traditional academic sense and transformative action be achieved simultaneously? The answer provided by Encounter 3 seems to suggest a redefinition of what ‘good’ scientific knowledge is, for immediate action to be possible.

Yet, perceived responsibilities—towards human and non-human actors, but also towards the own university, the institutional arrangements in which we partake, and what we understand as ethical behaviours—exist in a close, interdependent relationship with our inner ethical standards. Creed et al. ( 2022 , p. 358) capture this “ collection of sedimented evaluations of experiences, attachments, and commitments ” as an ‘embodied world of concern’. This can illustrate the complexity of how an individual researcher’s values, emotions, or sentiments tend to intertwine, and can sometimes clash, with the concerns of their communities and the social-political situation where they operate. Given that one’s embodied world of concern is not fixed but characterised by emerging pluralism, as Encounter 4 illustrates, the consequence of an ethical decision tends to fall more heavily on those with less axiological privilege, such as early career researchers or those located in regions where the opportunity for scientific publishing is limited (Kruijf et al., 2022 ).

As transformative researchers seek systemic change, their values cannot help but influence their research collaboration, including the choice of whom they work with and which methods to use. However, the intention of strengthening the responsiveness of research to societal and political needs through TR collaborations risks being co-opted by the interests of those funding research activities (Bauwens et al., 2023 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ). As illustrated in Encounter 5 , this might cause dilemmas when being approached by stakeholders (e.g., oil and gas companies) to do research, which may not sit well with the subjective judgements of the researcher or with an overall need for transformative change. Researchers can be caught in an odd position and left to wonder whether a compromise of values is worth the risks and end gain, depending on whether a positive contribution can still be achieved. Negotiating our axiological stances with collaborators thus allows researchers to be seen as social beings embedded in patterns of social interdependence, who are not only “ capable and can flourish ” but also “ vulnerable and susceptible to various kinds of loss or harm [and] can suffer ” (Sayer, 2011 , p. 1).

Ontological dimension

Ontology is the philosophical study of being, which concerns the nature of reality and what really exists. TR can start from diverse ontological stances, including critical realist, pragmatist, or subjectivist perspectives. This includes a strong acknowledgement that “ there are multiple versions of what is believed to be real ” (Mertens, 2017 , p. 21). Yet, such a pluralist stance remains a theoretical exercise up until the point that researchers ought to define what are ‘the things’ that need to be transformed and into what. In this situation, at least two debates arise: Do ‘the things’ exist based on a specific ontological commitment, such as the divide between measurable constructs and socially constructed understandings of risks and inequities. And is the existence of ‘the things’ universal or merely a construct of a specific time, space, or social group? As the researcher illustrated in Encounter 6 (see Table 3 for the detailed encounters), if maths anxiety and eco-anxiety are recognised as ‘real’ because of growing clinical research, why can’t the research team accept the construct of ‘science anxiety’ that their teacher collaborators have perceived in their classrooms? Collaboration thus remains especially challenging when researchers strive for academic rigour from an empiricist standpoint while having to cross paths or work with individuals from different ontological positions (Midgley, 2011 ).

Commitments to working collaboratively with members of ‘marginalised’ and ‘vulnerable’ communities add to this dilemma, as researchers are bound to encounter the ethical dilemmas of whose reality is privileged, whose reality can or should be legitimised and considered ‘true’ in a TR process (Kwan and Walsh, 2018 ). In Encounter 7 , for instance, research participants do not recognise themselves as ‘climate displaced persons’ or ‘climate migrants’ because they have a long history of migration for a plethora of reasons. Now, should researchers continue using this term with a view to gain political attention to the issues of climate change, or should they abstain from doing so? How does this relate to their commitment to transformative action, including shaping political agendas? The intention to target system-level change in TR (Burns, 2014 ; Kemmis, 2008 ) also means that researchers ought to interrogate the mechanisms that inflict certain perceived realities on the powerless in the name of good causes (Edelman, 2018 ; Feltham-King et al., 2018 ), the ways in which these narratives are deployed by powerful stakeholders (Thomas and Warner, 2019 ) and how these are translated into (research) action.

Moreover, research and action on ‘scientific’ problems can deflect attention from other problems that local communities most care about or lead to unexpected, even negative, implications for some stakeholders. With increasing pressure on the societal impact of research and funding tied to certain policy goals, the issues of labelling and appropriation might only perpetuate a deficit perspective on specific groups (Eriksen et al., 2021 ; Escobar, 2011 ; van Steenbergen, 2020 ). Encounter 8 highlights that, without caution, well-intended efforts risk perpetuating harm and injustice —upholding a certain deficit perspective of the community in question. Communities accustomed to ‘helicopter’ research, where academics ‘fly-in, fly-out’ to further their careers at the expense of the communities, may be reluctant to collaborate. This necessitates transparency, active listening, deliberative involvement, and trust building (Adame, 2021 ; Haelewaters et al., 2021 ). It also reminds us of the ‘seagull syndrome’,’ which attests to the frustration felt by community members towards outsider ‘experts’ making generalisations and false diagnoses based on what is usually a superficial or snapshot understanding of local community dynamics (Porter, 2016 ). In some incidents, transformative researchers may need to redesign collaboration processes in TR that centre on the realities of people in the study (Hickey et al., 2018 ).

Epistemological dimension

Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, and its primary concern is the relationship between the knower and what can be known. Transformative researchers usually work at the interface of disciplines, each with their own ideas on what constitutes ‘scientifically sound’ but also ‘socially robust’ or ‘actionable’ knowledge (Mach et al., 2020 ; Nowotny et al., 2003 ). Many thus hold the epistemological assumption that knowledge is created through multiple ways of knowing, and the processes of knowledge generation need to recognise how power inequities may shape the normative definition of legitimate knowledge. This stance raises ethical concerns about whose knowledge systems and ways of knowing are included, privileged, and/or legitimised in TR practice. Moreover, it raises concerns about ways of ensuring a plurality of knowledge spaces (Savransky, 2017 ).

Using an epistemological lens to interrogate collaborative practice in TR can illuminate a wide range of ethical dilemmas associated with longstanding critiques of Western norms and ‘scientific superiority’ (Dotson, 2011 ; Dutta et al., 2022 ; Wijsman and Feagan, 2019 ). It also brings to the fore the power dynamics inherent within collaborative processes of TR for sustainability (de Geus et al., 2023 ; Frantzeskaki and Rok, 2018 ; Kanemasu and Molnar, 2020 ; Kok et al., 2021 ; Strumińska-Kutra and Scholl, 2022 ). A particular ethical challenge is related to the fact that it is typically researchers from the Global North who design and lead research collaborations, even when these take place in the Global South. This immediately creates “ an inequality that is not conducive to effective co-production ” and requires “ dedicated commitment to identify and confront the embodied power relations [and] hegemonic knowledge systems among the participants in the process ” (Vincent, 2022 , p. 890). See Table 4 for details on the ethical dilemmas that we discuss in the following.

Concerns about epistemic justice (Ackerly et al., 2020 ; Harvey et al., 2022 ; Temper and Del Bene, 2016 ) and interpretation of voices (Komulainen, 2007 ) are largely rooted in the deficit narratives about the capacity of certain groups for producing knowledge or for being knowers. Encounter 9 shows how easily certain voices can be muted as not being considered to speak from a position of knowledge. Research processes can usefully be expanded to include disinterested or disengaged citizens (Boyle et al., 2022 ), or those opposing a project or initiative so as to lay bare the associated tensions of knowledge integration and co-production (Cockburn, 2022 ). Encounter 10 illustrates that such silencing also relates to the question of who holds legitimate knowledge. This research has three parties that may hold legitimate knowledge: the researcher, the corporation, and the local community. However, the extent to which the researchers’ knowledge is heard remains unclear since the corporation does not consider it in its actions. It also illustrates common insecurities about what one can attain using certain research methods. The reliance of political institutions and citizens on expert advice, particularly when dealing with acute crises (e.g., Covid-19 pandemic), also tends to exacerbate the depoliticisation of decisions (Rovelli, 2021 ).

Moreover, TR practice nearly inevitably results in privileging certain ways of knowing and knowledges. Researchers make space for shared action or dialogue around a certain issue, inviting certain groups but not others, and choosing certain methods and not others. Encounter 11 illustrates the issue of favouritism in research collaboration. It elaborates on how thoughtful facilitation can intervene to level the playing field and provide a way out of the dilemma going beyond the question of whose benefit it serves. This facilitation enables meaningful collaboration among all parties involved. Particularly in policy sectors dominated by political and economic considerations, which exhibit strong vested interests, there is a need to foster meaningful and safe participation (Nastar et al., 2018 ). Skilled facilitation is crucial for uniting marginalised groups, preparing them to deal with the intricacies of scientific jargon and technological hegemony (Djenontin and Meadow, 2018 ; Reed and Abernethy, 2018 ). The contextual dimensions of collaborators, their associated worldviews, and the social networks in which they are situated are important epistemological foundations. Yet, these are not static and can shift over time throughout collaborative partnerships.

As explicated in “Introducing transformative research”, TR represents an epistemological shift to recognise researchers as sense-makers, agency holders, and change agents. This philosophical commitment can create dilemmas for ‘embedded researchers’ seeking to strengthen the science-policy interface. Encounter 12 illustrates how occupying a dual role — to dive into action and to publish scientifically — can be at odds. This encounter alludes to the fact that transformative researchers often navigate different roles, which come with different, at times conflicting, epistemological priorities and ways of knowing (e.g., roles as a change agent and a reflective scientist, the approach of ‘Two-Eyed Seeing’ by Indigenous scholars) (Bulten et al., 2021 ; Temper et al., 2019 ; Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014 ). Importantly, such roles change over time in a TR practice and over the course of a researcher’s career (McGowan et al., 2014 ; Pohl et al., 2017 ).

Involving diverse stakeholders in knowledge co-production also inevitably leads to ethical questions concerning how to integrate diverse knowledge systems, especially those using multi-method research designs or models to aid decision-making (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ). Models can be useful in providing scenarios, however, they are constructed by people based on certain assumptions. These assumptions serve as the fundamental lenses through which complex real-world systems are simplified, analysed, and interpreted within the model framework. Despite the well-intention of researchers, the practice of establishing a shared understanding and reaching consensus about key constructs in a model is often unattainable. As Encounter 13 illustrates, participatory model building requires the capacity and willingness of all involved to knit together kindred, or even conflicting, perspectives to complement disciplinary specialism.

We explored the dilemmas of researchers pertaining to knowing ‘how to’ act in a certain situation and considering ‘what is doing good’ in that situation. Transformative researchers (re)build their practical knowledge of what doing research means through cultivating a reflexive practice that puts experiences in context and allows to learn from them. From a meta-perspective, doing TR is a form of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984 ) and doing TR involves traversing an action research cycle: experiencing and observing one’s action research practice, abstracting from it, building knowledge, and experimenting with it again to cultivate what has been referred to as first person inquiry (Reason and Torbert, 2001 ).

Concluding thoughts

In this article, we set out to explore which ethical dilemmas researchers face in TR and how they navigate those in practice. We highlighted that researchers engaging in TR face a context of uncertainty and plurality around what counts as ethically acceptable collaboration. With TR emphasising collaboration, it becomes important to discern the notion of ‘right relations’ with others (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2022 ), to attend to the positionality of the researcher, and to reconfigure power relations. Importantly, with TR emphasising the need for structural and systematic changes, researchers need to be aware of how research itself is characterised by structural injustices.

Using a collaborative autoethnography, we shared ethical dilemmas to uncover the messiness of collaborative TR practice. We established how guidance from institutionalised reference systems (i.e., ethical review boards and procedures) currently falls short in recognising the particularities of TR. We described how the research community generates informal principles, or heuristics to address this gap. However, we also appreciated that in actual collaboration, researchers are often ‘put on the spot’ to react ‘ethically’ in situ, with limited time and space to withdraw and consult guidelines on ‘how to behave’. Such informal heuristics are thus but a start and a helpful direction for developing the practical knowledge of researchers on how to navigate a plural and uncertain context.

This practical knowledge is based on an awareness of the uncertainty around what constitutes morally good behaviour and builds through experience and a critical reflexive practice. Our aim is not to share another set of principles, but rather to highlight the situatedness of TR and the craftsmanship necessary to navigate it and, in doing so, build practical knowledge through experiential learning and insight discovery (Kolb, 1984 ; Pearce et al., 2022 ). Such a bottom-up approach to research ethics builds on the experiences of researchers engaging in TR as a situated practice vis-à-vis their personal motivations and normative ambitions and the institutional contexts they are embedded in. This approach nurtures the critical reflexivity of researchers about how they relate to ethical principles and how they translate this into their normative assumptions, practical hypotheses, and methodological strategy.

Next to continuous learning, this critical reflexivity on TR as craftmanship can enhance practical wisdom not only for the individual but also for the broader community of researchers. We envision such wisdom not as a set of closed-ended guidelines or principles, but rather as a growing collection of ethical questions enabling the TR community to continuously deepen the interrogation of their axiological, ontological, and epistemological commitments (see Table 5 ). Only through this ongoing process of reacting, reflecting, and questioning—or as referred to by Pearce et al. ( 2022 , p. 4) as “an insight discovery process”—can we collectively learn from the past to improve our future actions.

However, such a bottom-up approach to ethics can only form one part of the answer, set in times of an evolving research ethics landscape. Researchers engaging in transformative academic work cannot and should not be left alone. Additionally, researchers’ ethical judgements cannot be left to their goodwill and virtuous values alone. Therefore, another important part of the answer is the carving out of appropriate institutions that can provide external guidance and accountability. This will require nothing less than structural and cultural changes in established universities and research environments. Rather than having researchers decide between doing good and doing ‘good’ research, such environments should help to align those goals.

From this work, questions arise on how institutional environments can be reformed or transformed to be more conducive to the particularities of TR, and to help nurture critical reflexivity. We highlight the critical role that ethic review boards can play in starting to rethink their roles, structures, and underlying values. Practical ideas include employing mentors for transformative research ethics, having ethical review as a process rather than as a one-off at the start of the project, or continuously investing in moral education. Thus, we underscore the importance of individual reflexivity and learning. However, we would like to set this in the broader context of organisational learning, and even unlearning, among academic institutions to overhaul our academic systems in response to the urgent imperative of tackling socio-ecological challenges globally. In this transformative endeavour, careful consideration of how the ethics of research and collaboration shape academics’ socially engaged work is indispensable.

The full set of essentials is the following: (1) Focus on transformations to low-carbon, resilient living; (2) Focus on solution processes; (3) Focus on ‘how to’ practical knowledge; (4) Approach research as occurring from within the system being intervened; (5) Work with normative aspects; (6) Seek to transcend current thinking; (7) Take a multi-faceted approach to understand and shape change; (8) Acknowledge the value of alternative roles of researchers; (9) Encourage second-order experimentation; and (10) Be reflexive. Joint application of the essentials would create highly adaptive, reflexive, collaborative, and impact-oriented research able to enhance capacity to respond to the climate challenge.

Disciplines include amongst others anthropology, business administration, climate change adaptation, cultural economics, economics, economic geography, education, health sciences, human geography, international development studies, philosophy, political science, sociology, urban planning.

Ackerly BA, Friedman EJ, Menon K, Zalewski M (2020) Research ethics and epistemic oppression. Int. Feminist J Politics 22(3):309–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2020.1771006

Article   Google Scholar  

Adame F (2021) Meaningful collaborations can end ‘helicopter research’. Nature d41586-021-01795–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1

Arnott JC, Neuenfeldt RJ, Lemos MC (2020) Co-producing science for sustainability: can funding change knowledge use? Glob Environ Change 60:101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979

Arrona A, Larrea M (2018) Soft resistance: balancing relationality and criticality to institutionalise action research for territorial development. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds.) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 134–152

Bartels KPR, Greenwood DJ, Wittmayer JM (2020) How action research can make deliberative policy analysis more transformative. Policy Stud 41(4):392–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2020.1724927

Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) (2018) Action research in policy analysis. critical and relational approaches to sustainability transitions. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York

Bauwens T, Reike D, Calisto-Friant M (2023) Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it. Environ Innov Soci Transit 48:100749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100749

Beauchamp T, Childress J (2001) Principles Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press

BMJ. (1996) The Nuremberg Code (1947). 313(7070), 1448. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448

Bournot-Trites M, Belanger J (2005) Ethical dilemmas facing action researchers. J Educ Thought (JET)/Rev de La Pensée Éducative 39(2):197–215

Google Scholar  

Boyle E, Galvin M, Revez A, Deane A, Ó Gallachóir B, Mullally G (2022) Flexibility & structure: community engagement on climate action & large infrastructure delivery. Energy Policy 167:113050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113050

Boyle E, McGookin C, O’Mahony C, Bolger P, Byrne E, Gallachóir BÓ, Mullally G (2023) Understanding how institutions may support the development of transdisciplinary approaches to sustainability research. Research for All, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.14324/RFA.07.1.07

Bradbury H, Waddell S, O’Brien K, Apgar M, Teehankee B, Fazey I (2019) A call to action research for transformations: the times demand it. Action Res 17(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633

Bulten E, Hessels LK, Hordijk M, Segrave AJ (2021) Conflicting roles of researchers in sustainability transitions: balancing action and reflection. Sustain Sci 16(4):1269–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00938-7

Burns D (2014) Systemic action research: changing system dynamics to support sustainable change. Action Res 12(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750313513910

Caniglia G, Freeth R, Luederitz C, Leventon J, West SP, John B, Peukert D, Lang DJ, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B, Fazey I, Russo F, von Wirth T, Schlüter M, Vogel C (2023) Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain 6(5):493–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Caniglia G, Luederitz C, von Wirth T, Fazey I, Martín-López B, Hondrila K, König A, von Wehrden H, Schäpke NA, Laubichler MD, Lang DJ (2021) A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Cassell C, Johnson P (2006) Action research: explaining the diversity. Hum Relat 59(6):783–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706067080

Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengö M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ, Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Österblom H, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustainability 4(11):983–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x

Chang H, Ngunjiri F, Hernandez K (2016) Collaborative autoethnography (Vol. 8). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315432137/collaborative-autoethnography-kathy-ann-hernandez-heewon-chang-faith-ngunjiri

Chilisa B (2020) Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

Christians C (2005) Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Y Lincoln (ed) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 139–164

Clouser K, Gert B (1990) A critique of principlism. J Med Philos 152(2):219–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/15.2.219

Cockburn J (2022) Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism. Sustain Dev 30(2):358–374

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Cockburn J, Cundill G (2018) Ethics in transdisciplinary research: Reflections on the implications of ‘Science with Society’. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham, pp 81–97

Coghlan D, Shani ABR (2005) Roles, Politics, and Ethics in Action Research Design. Syst Pract Action Res 18(6):533–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-9465-3

Creed WED, Hudson BA, Okhuysen GA, Smith-Crowe K (2022) A place in the world: vulnerability, well-Being, and the Ubiquitous evaluation that animates participation in institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 47(3):358–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0367

Davies B, Gannon S (2006) The practices of collective biography. In: Davies B, Gannon S (eds) Doing collective biography. Investigating the production of subjectivity, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 1–15

de Geus T, Avelino F, Strumińska-Kutra M, Pitzer M, Wittmayer JM, Hendrikx L, Joshi V, Schrandt N, Widdel L, Fraaije M, Iskandarova M, Hielscher S, Rogge K (2023) Making sense of power through transdisciplinary sustainability research: insights from a transformative power lab. Sustain Sci. 18(3):1311–1327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01294-4

Detardo-Bora K (2004) Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review boards. Action Res 2(3):237–253

Djenontin INS, Meadow AM (2018) The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice. Environ Manag 61(6):885–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Donald D (2012) Indigenous Métissage: a decolonizing research sensibility. Int J Qual Stud Educ 25(5):533–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2011.554449

Dotson K (2011) Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia 26(2):236–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01177.x

Dutta U, Azad AK, Hussain SM (2022) Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: decolonial community‐based praxis from the global south. Am J Commun Psychol 69(1–2):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12545

Edelman NL (2018) Researching sexual healthcare for women with problematic drug use: returning to ethical principles in study processes. In: In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 47–62

Eriksen S, Schipper ELF, Scoville-Simonds M, Vincent K, Adam HN, Brooks N, Harding B, Khatri D, Lenaerts L, Liverman D, Mills-Novoa M, Mosberg M, Movik S, Muok B, Nightingale A, Ojha H, Sygna L, Taylor M, Vogel C, West JJ (2021) Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev 141:105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Escobar A (2011) Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World, vol 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G, Patterson J, Hultman J, van Mierlo B, Säwe F, Wiek A, Wittmayer J, Aldunce P, Woods M, Wyborn C (2018) Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026

Feltham-King T, Bomela Y, Macleod CI (2018) Contesting the nature of young pregnant and mothering women: critical healthcare nexus research, ethics committees, and healthcare institutions. In: Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research, Springer, Cham, pp 63–79

Ferraro F, Etzion D, Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ Stud 36(3):363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

Finlay L (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qua Res 2:209–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205

Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N (2016) Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environ Sci Policy 62:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010

Frantzeskaki N, Rok A (2018) Co-producing urban sustainability transitions knowledge with community, policy and science. Environ Innov Soc Transit 29(August):47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.001

Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1994) The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol Econ 10(3):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2

Future Earth (2014) Future Earth 2025 Vision. International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris. Online at: https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/future-earth_10-year-vision_web.pdf

General Assembly of the World Medical Association (2014) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Coll Dent 81(3):14–18

Gerber A, Forsberg E-M, Shelley-Egan C, Arias R, Daimer S, Dalton G, Cristóbal AB, Dreyer M, Griessler E, Lindner R, Revuelta G, Riccio A, Steinhaus N (2020) Joint declaration on mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J Responsible Innov 7(3):708–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1764837

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications, London

Gram-Hanssen I, Schafenacker N, Bentz J (2022) Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations. Sustain Sci 17(2):673–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9

Greenwood DJ, Levin M (2007) Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Haapala J, Rautanen S-L, White P, Keskinen M, Varis O (2016) Facilitating bricolage through more organic institutional designs? The case of water users’ associations in rural Nepal. Int J Commons 10(2):1172. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.688

Haelewaters D, Hofmann TA, Romero-Olivares AL (2021) Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South. PLOS Comput Biol 17(8):e1009277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14(3):575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066

Harney L, Mccurry J, Wills J (2016) Developing ‘ process pragmatism ’ to underpin engaged research in human geography. Prog Hum Geogr 40(3):316–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515623367

Harvey B, Huang Y-S, Araujo J, Vincent K, Sabiiti G (2022) Breaking vicious cycles? A systems perspective on Southern leadership in climate and development research programmes. Clim Dev 14(10):884–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.2020614

Hessels LK, van Lente H, Smits R (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387–401. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442034

Hickey G, Richards T, Sheehy J (2018) Co-production from proposal to paper Three examples show how public participation in research can be extended at every step of the process to generate useful knowledge. Nature 562:29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06861-9

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye, D, Pohl, C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3

Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, Klein JT, O’Rourke M (2022) Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):147. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-022-01138-Z

Hoffmann S, Pohl C, Hering JG (2017) Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes. Res Policy 46(3):678–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

Hölscher K, Wittmayer JM, Hirschnitz-garbers M, Olfert A, Schiller G, Brunnow B (2021) Transforming science and society? Methodological lessons from and for transformation research. Res Eval 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvaa034

Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leventon J, Lang DJ (2022) Making transdisciplinarity happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning. Environ Sci Policy 136:187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019

Horlings LG, Nieto-Romero M, Pisters S, Soini K (2020) Operationalising transformative sustainability science through place-based research: the role of researchers. Sustain Sci. 15(2):467–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00757-x

Huang YS, Harvey B, Vincent K (2024) Large-scale sustainability programming is reshaping research excellence: Insights from a meta-ethnographic study of 12 global initiatives Environ Sci Policy 155:103725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103725

Hurtado S (2022) The transformative paradigm. In: Pasque PA (ed) Advancing culturally responsive research and researchers: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods, Routledge, London, pp 15–17

Jaeger-Erben M, Nagy E, Schäfer M, Süßbauer E, Zscheischler J (2018) Von der Programmatik zur Praxis: Plädoyer für eine Grounded Theory transformationsorientierter Forschung. GAIA - Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 27(1):117–121. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.5

Janes J (2016) Democratic encounters? Epistemic privilege, power, and community-based participatory action research. Action Res 14(1):72–87

Jhagroe S (2018) Transition scientivism: on activist gardening and co-producing transition knowledge ‘from below’. In: Bartels KPR, Wittmayer JM (eds) Action Research in Policy Analysis. Critical and Relational Appoaches to Sustainability Transitions, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, pp 64–85

Kanemasu Y, Molnar G (2020) Representing’ the voices of Fijian women rugby players: Working with power differentials in transformative research. Int Rev Sociol Sport 55(4):399–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690218818991

Kemmis S (2008) Critical theory and participatory action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications, London, pp 695–707

Kok KPW, Gjefsen MD, Regeer BJ, Broerse JEW (2021) Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustain Sci 16(6):1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kolb, D (1984) The Process of Experiential Learning. In: Experiential Learning. Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, pp 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4

Komulainen S (2007) The Ambiguity of the Child’s ‘Voice’ in Social Research. Childhood 14(1):11–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568207068561

Kruijf JV, Verbrugge L, Schröter B, den Haan R, Cortes Arevalo J, Fliervoet J, Henze J, Albert C (2022) Knowledge co‐production and researcher roles in transdisciplinary environmental management projects. Sustain Dev 30(2):393–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2281

Kump B, Wittmayer J, Bogner K, Beekman M (2023) Navigating force conflicts: a case study on strategies of transformative research in the current academic system. J Clean Prod 412:137374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137374

Kwan C, Walsh C (2018) Ethical issues in conducting community-based participatory research: a narrative review of the literature. Qual Rep. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3331

Lacey J, Howden SM, Cvitanovic C, Dowd A-M (2015) Informed adaptation: ethical considerations for adaptation researchers and decision-makers. Glob Environ Change 32:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.011

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Sci. 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Lapadat JC (2017) Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qual Inq 23(8):589–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704462

Lincoln Y (2001) Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Participative inquiry and practice, SAGE Publications, London, pp 124–132

Locke T, Alcorn N, O’Neill J (2013) Ethical issues in collaborative action research. Educ Action Res 21(1):107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2013.763448

Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42(1):599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340

Lotz-Sisitka H, Ali MB, Mphepo G, Chaves M, Macintyre T, Pesanayi T, Wals A, Mukute M, Kronlid D, Tran DT, Joon D, McGarry D (2016) Co-designing research on transgressive learning in times of climate change. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.04.004

Mach KJ, Lemos MC, Meadow AM, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Arnott JC, Ardoin NM, Fieseler C, Moss RH, Nichols L, Stults M, Vaughan C, Wong-Parodi G (2020) Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.01.002

Macleod CI, Marx J, Mnyaka P, Treharne GJ (eds) (2018) The Palgrave Handbook of Ethics in Critical Research. Springer, Cham

Malkki LH (2007) Tradition and Improvisation in Ethnographic Field Research. In: Cerwonka A, Malkki LH, Improvising Theory. Process and Temporality in Ethnographic Fieldwork, The University of Chicago Press, pp 162–187

Marguin S, Haus J, Heinrich AJ, Kahl A, Schendzielorz C, Singh A (2021) Positionality Reloaded: Über die Dimensionen der Reflexivität im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft: Ein EditorialPositionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial. Historical Soc Res 46:734. https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.46.2021.2.7-34

McGowan KA, Westley F, Fraser EDG, Loring PA, Weathers KC, Avelino F, Sendzimir J, Roy Chowdhury R, Moore M-L (2014) The research journey: travels across the idiomatic and axiomatic toward a better understanding of complexity. Ecol Soc 19(3):art37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06518-190337

Menon S, Hartz-Karp J (2023) Applying mixed methods action research to explore how public participation in an Indian City could better resolve urban sustainability problems. Action Res 21(2):230–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750320943662

Mertens DM (2007) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res 1(3):212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

Mertens DM (2017) Transformative research: Personal and societal. Int J Transform Res 4(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001

Mertens DM (2021) Transformative research methods to increase social impact for vulnerable groups and cultural minorities. Int J Qua Methods 20:160940692110515. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211051563

Midgley G (2011) Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Syst Pract Action Res 24:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-010-9176-2

Miyahara M, Fukao A (2022) Exploring the use of collaborative autoethnography as a tool for facilitating the development of researcher reflexivity. System 105:102751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102751

Nastar M, Abbas S, Aponte Rivero C, Jenkins S, Kooy M (2018) The emancipatory promise of participatory water governance for the urban poor: Reflections on the transition management approach in the cities of Dodowa, Ghana and Arusha, Tanzania. Afr Stud 77(4):504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2018.1459287

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical, & Behavioral Research. (1979) The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research ( Vol. 1 ) . United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Online available here: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Norström AV, Cvitanovic C, Löf MF, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaffney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray JB, Leach M, Österblom H (2020) Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustainability 3(3):182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41(3):179–194

Nugroho K, Carden F, Antlov H (2018) Local knowledge matters: Power, context and policy making in Indonesia. Policy Press, Bristol

Parks S, Rincon D, Parkinson S, Manville C (2019) The changing research landscape and reflections on national research assessment in the future . RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3200.html

Parsell M, Ambler T, Jacenyik-Trawoger C (2014) Ethics in higher education research. Stud High Educ 39(1):166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.647766

Pearce BJ, Deutsch L, Fry P, Marafatto FF, Lieu J (2022) Going beyond the AHA! moment: insight discovery for transdisciplinary research and learning. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):123. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01129-0

Phillips L, Christensen-Strynø MB, Frølunde L (2022) Thinking with autoethnography in collaborative research: a critical, reflexive approach to relational ethics. Qual Res 22(5):761–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211033446

Pohl C (2008) From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 11(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

Pohl C, Krütli P, Stauffacher M (2017) Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 26(1):43–51. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.26.1.10

Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

Porter A (2016) Decolonizing policing: indigenous patrols, counter-policing and safety. Theor Criminol 20(4):548–565

Reason P, Torbert W (2001) The action turn: toward a transformational social science. Concepts Transform 6(1):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1.02rea

Reed MG, Abernethy P (2018) Facilitating Co-production of transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainability: working with canadian biosphere reserve practitioners. Soc Nat Resour 31(1):39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.1383545

Rovelli C (2021) Politics should listen to science, not hide behind it. Nat Mater 20(2):272–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-00891-3

Rowan J (2000) Research ethics. Int J Psychother 5(2):103–110

Saltelli A, Ravetz JR, Funtowicz S (2016) Who will solve the crisis in science? In: Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Giampietro M, Guimaraes Pereira A, Ravetz J, Saltelli A, Strand R, van der Sluijs JP (eds) The rightful place of science: Science on the verge. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes

Savransky M (2017) A decolonial imagination: sociology, anthropology and the politics of reality. Sociology 51(1):11–26

Sayer A (2011) Why things matter to people: Social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schäpke N, Bergmann M, Stelzer F, Lang DJ (2018) Labs in the real world: advancing transdisciplinary research and sustainability transformation: mapping the field and emerging lines of inquiry. Gaia 27:8–11. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.4

Schneider F, Giger M, Harari N, Moser S, Oberlack C, Providoli I, Schmid L, Tribaldos T, Zimmermann A (2019) Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environ Sci Policy 102(October):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

Schneidewind U, Singer-Brodowski M, Augenstein K (2016) Transformative science for sustainability transitions. In: Handbook on sustainability transition and sustainable peace, Springer, pp 123–136

Schut M, Paassen AV, Leeuwis C, Klerkx L (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. 41(August 2013), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct048

Smith L (2008) Ethical principles in practice. Evidence from participatory action research. Kairaranga 9(3):16–21. https://doi.org/10.54322/kairaranga.v9i3.135

Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008

Stirling A (2006) Precaution, foresight and sustainability: Reflection and reflexivity in the governance of science and technology. In: Voß JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 225–272

Strumińska-Kutra M, Scholl C (2022) Taking power seriously: towards a power-sensitive approach for transdisciplinary action research. Futures 135(December 2021):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102881

Strydom WF, Funke N, Nienaber S, Nortje K, Steyn M (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: a review. South Afr J Sci 106(5/6):8 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajs.v106i5/6.249

Temper L, Del Bene D (2016) Transforming knowledge creation for environmental and epistemic justice. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 20:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.004

Temper L, McGarry D, Weber L (2019) From academic to political rigour: insights from the ‘Tarot’ of transgressive research. Ecol Econ 164:106379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106379

Thomas KA, Warner BP (2019) Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change. Glob Environ Change 57:101928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101928

van Breda J, Swilling M (2019) The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustain Sci 14(3):823–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x

van Steenbergen F (2020) Zonder marge geen centrum. Een pleidooi voor een rechtvaardige transitie. [PhD-Thesis]. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Vermeer J, Pinheiro H, Petrosova L, Eaton D (2020) Evaluation of the Belmont Forum: Final report. Technolopolis Group. https://www.belmontforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Belmont-Forum-External-Evaluation.pdf

Vincent K (2022) Development geography I: Co-production. Prog Hum Geogr 46(3):890–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132522107905

WBGU (2011) Flagship report: world in transition—a social contract for sustainability. In: Berlin: German Advisory

West S, Schill C (2022) Negotiating the ethical-political dimensions of research methods: a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research. Hum Soc Sci Commun 9(1):294. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01297-z

Wijsman K, Feagan M (2019) Rethinking knowledge systems for urban resilience: Feminist and decolonial contributions to just transformations. Environ Sci Policy 98:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.017

Williamson GR, Prosser S (2002) Action research: politics, ethics and participation. J Adv Nurs 40(5):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02416.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wilson S (2020) Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing. https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/research-is-ceremony-shawn-wilson

Wittmayer JM (2016) Transition Management, Action Research and Actor Roles: Understanding local sustainability transitions. Erasmus University Rotterdam

Wittmayer JM, Loorbach D, Bogner K, Hendlin Y, Hölscher K, Lavanga M, Vasques A, von Wirth T, de Wal M (2021) Transformative Research: Knowledge and action for just sustainability transitions (Design Impact Transition Platform Working Paper Series). Design Impact Transition Platform Erasmus University Rotterdam. https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/transformative-research-knowledge-and-action-for-just-sustainabil

Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9(4):483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

Wood L, Kahts-Kramer S (2023) But how will you ensure the objectivity of the researcher?’ Guidelines to address possible misconceptions about the ethical imperatives of community-based research. Res Ethics 19(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221135882

Yanow D (2006) Neither rigorous nor objective? Interrogating criteria for knowledge claims in interpretive science. In: Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P, Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, M.E. Sharpe, pp 67–88

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Derk Loorbach & Neha Mungekar

Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Julia M. Wittmayer, Timo von Wirth, Tessa Boumans & Neha Mungekar

Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Kristina Bogner

MaREI Centre for Energy Climate and Marine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Katharina Hölscher

Research Lab for Urban Transport (ReLUT), Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Timo von Wirth

Business Management & Organisation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Jilde Garst

Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Yogi Hale Hendlin

Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Mariangela Lavanga

Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Mapula Tshangela

Delft Centre for Entrepreneurship, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Pieter Vandekerckhove

Erasmus University College Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Ana Vasques

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Julia M. Wittmayer and Ying-Syuan Huang drafted the work for important intellectual content, substantially contributed to the concept and design of the work, and contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data for the work. Kristina Bogner, Evan Boyle, Katharina Hölscher, and Timo von Wirth substantially contributed to the concept or design of the work and contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work. Tessa Boumans, Jilde Garst, Yogi Hendlin, Mariangela Lavanga, Derk Loorbach, Neha Mungekar, Mapula Tshangela, Pieter Vandekerckhove, and Ana Vasues contributed to the analysis or interpretation of data for the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia M. Wittmayer .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval and Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wittmayer, J.M., Huang, YS.(., Bogner, K. et al. Neither right nor wrong? Ethics of collaboration in transformative research for sustainable futures. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 677 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Download citation

Received : 21 December 2023

Accepted : 13 May 2024

Published : 25 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03178-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Recycling of printed Xerographic paper using Aspergillus assiutensis enzyme cocktail: an integrated approach to sustainable development

• Research Article
• Published: 30 May 2024

Cite this article

• Aiman Tanveer 1   na1 ,
• Supriya Gupta 1   na1 ,
• Shruti Dwivedi 1 ,
• Sangeeta Yadav 1 &
• Dinesh Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2990-0670 1  

To overcome the human and animal survivability risk, sustainable development is the only option on earth that can be achieved through the maximum use of renewable environmental resources. Recycling of waste paper is an emerging waste management approach to conserve natural resources. Herein, we studied enzyme-mediated process to recycle the xerographic paper by using the crude fungal extract from indigenously isolated fungi identified as  Aspergillus assiutensis . The fungal enzyme cocktail has been characterized for the production of multiple enzymes namely cellulase, amylase, xylanase, pectinase, and protease. All these enzymes have pH optima in the acidic range and except cellulase and all the enzymes are stable from 10 to 80 C. In the zymogram analysis, pectinase, xylanase, amylase, and cellulase were detected at 68 kDa, ~ 54 kDa, 38 kDa, and 30 kDa, respectively. Also, the presence of protease was confirmed by the clear zone at 68, 31, and 16 kDa. A 26% decrease in the kappa number and reduction in Hex A of the pulp was observed on the treatment of the pulp with enzyme as compared to the control pulp without any treatment. The physical and chemical properties of the pulp were also improved by enzyme-mediated pulping as compared to the control The physiochemical parameter of the effluent like TDS was reduced (397 ppm) significantly in comparison to chemical deinking process and it was within the permissible limit. BOD and alkalinity were reduced when the enzymes and chemical dosage were used in combination. These results indicate that chemi-enzymatic deinking is most promising to reduce or remove the pollution parameters including ink and this approach can be used in the paper and pulp industry for sustainable development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abdelmoteleb A, Troncoso-Rojas R, Gonzalez-Soto T, González-Mendoza D (2017) Antifungical activity of autochthonous Bacillus subtilis isolated from Prosopis juliflora against phytopathogenic fungi. Mycobiology 45(4):385–391

Article   Google Scholar  

Agrawal S, Nagpal R, Sharma D, Bhardwaj N, Mahajan R (2022) An eco-friendly biocatalytic process for producing better quality paper from sugarcane bagasse using ultrafiltered enzymes concoction. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 45(4):741–747

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Albersheim P (1966) [107] Pectin lyase from fungi. In: Methods in enzymology. Elsevier, 628–631

Ali I, Akbar A, Anwar M, Prasongsuk S, Lotrakul P, Punnapayak H (2015) Purification and Characterization of a Polyextremophilic <i>α</i>-Amylase from an Obligate Halophilic <i>Aspergillus penicillioides</i> Isolate and Its Potential for Souse with Detergents. Biomed Res Int 2015:245649

Andrades A, Contreras LM (2017) Amylase Zymography. Methods Mol Biol (Clifton NJ) 1626:301–308

Bailey MJ, Biely P, Poutanen K (1992) Interlaboratory testing of methods for assay of xylanase activity. J Biotechnol 23(3):257–270

Bajpai PK (2010) Solving the problems of recycled fiber processing with enzymes. BioResources 5(2):1311–1325

Bajpai P, Bajpai P (1998) Deinking with enzymes. Tappi J 81:111–118

CAS   Google Scholar  

Balali GR, Minaiefar A, Sharifnabi B (2010) Pectic zymogram variation and morphological identification of Aspergillus species. Rostaniha 11(2):163–174

Google Scholar  

Bazrafshan E, Biglari H, Mahvi AH (2012) Phenol removal by electrocoagulation process from aqueous solutions. Fresenius Environ Bull 21(2):364–371

Carvalho M, Ferreira P, Figueiredo M (2000) Cellulose depolymerisation and paper properties in E. globulus kraft pulps. Cellulose 7(4):359–368

Chaichanawong J, Yamamoto T, Ohmori T (2010) Enhancement effect of carbon adsorbent on ozonation of aqueous phenol. J Hazard Mater 175(1–3):673–679

Champasri C, Champasri T, Woranam K (2015) Purification, biochemical characterization of a macrotermes gilvus cellulase and zymogram analysis. Asian J Biochem 10(5):190–204

Chauhan S, Choudhury B, Singh S, Ghosh P (2006) Application of xylanase enzyme of Bacillus coagulans as a prebleaching agent on non-woody pulps. Process Biochem 41(1):226–231

Chimbekujwo KI, Ja’afaru MI, Adeyemo OM (2020) Purification, characterization and optimization conditions of protease produced by Aspergillus brasiliensis strain BCW2. Sci Afr 8:e00398

Chutani P, Sharma KK (2016) Concomitant production of xylanases and cellulases from Trichoderma longibrachiatum MDU-6 selected for the deinking of paper waste. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 39:747–758

Cicekler M, Tutus A (2021) Effects of cellulase enzyme in deinking of Solvent-Based inks from mixed office wastes. Biocatal Biotransform 39(2):152–160

Dixit M, Gupta GK, Pathak P, Bhardwaj NK, Shukla P (2022) An efficient endoglucanase and lipase enzyme consortium (ELEC) for deinking of old newspaper and ultrastructural analysis of deinked pulp. Biomass Convers Biorefinery 1–9

Facchin S, Alves PDD, de Faria Siqueira F, Barroca TM, Victória JMN, Kalapothakis E (2013) Biodiversity and secretion of enzymes with potential utility in wastewater treatment

Gaya UI, Abdullah AH, Hussein MZ, Zainal Z (2010) Photocatalytic removal of 2, 4, 6-trichlorophenol from water exploiting commercial ZnO powder. Desalination 263(1–3):176–182

Ghanbarzadeh B, Ataeefard M, Etezad S, Mahdavi S (2024) Optical and printing properties of deinked office waste printed paper. Prog Color Colorants Coat 17(1):75–84

Gübitz G, Mansfield SD, Böhm D, Saddler J (1998) Effect of endoglucanases and hemicellulases in magnetic and flotation deinking of xerographic and laser-printed papers. J Biotechnol 65(2–3):209–215

Gupta GK, Dixit M, Kapoor RK, Shukla P (2022) Xylanolytic enzymes in pulp and paper industry: new technologies and perspectives. Mol Biotechnol 64(2):130–143

Haq I, Kalamdhad AS, Pandey A (2022) Genotoxicity evaluation of paper industry wastewater prior and post-treatment with laccase producing Pseudomonas putida MTCC 7525. J Clean Prod 342:130981

Heussen C, Dowdle EB (1980) Electrophoretic analysis of plasminogen activators in polyacrylamide gels containing sodium dodecyl sulfate and copolymerized substrates. Anal Biochem 102(1):196–202

Ibarra D, Concepción Monte M, Blanco A, Martínez AT, Martínez MJ (2012) Enzymatic deinking of secondary fibers: cellulases/hemicellulases versus laccase-mediator system. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 39(1):1–9

Kalra K, Chauhan R, Shavez M, Sachdeva S (2013) Isolation of laccase producing Trichoderma spp. and effect of pH and temperature on its activity. Int J Chem Environ Technol 5(5):2229–2235

Kasana RC, Salwan R, Dhar H, Dutt S, Gulati A (2008) A rapid and easy method for the detection of microbial cellulases on agar plates using Gram’s iodine. Curr Microbiol 57(5):503–507

Kaur A, Rishi V, Soni SK, Rishi P (2020) A novel multi-enzyme preparation produced from Aspergillus niger using biodegradable waste: a possible option to combat heterogeneous biofilms. AMB Express 10(1):36

Kumar NV, Rani ME, Gunaseeli R, Kannan N (2018) Paper pulp modification and deinking efficiency of cellulase-xylanase complex from Escherichia coli SD5. Int J Biol Macromol 111:289–295

Lee C, Ibrahim D, Ibrahim CO, Daud WRW (2011) Enzymatic and chemical deinking of mixed office wastepaper and old newspaper: paper quality and effluent characteristics. BioResources 6(4):3859–3875

Lee CK, Ibrahim D, Omar IC (2013) Enzymatic deinking of various types of waste paper: efficiency and characteristics. Process Biochem 48(2):299–305

Liu X, Xing K, Ning R, Carné S, Wu X, Nie W (2021) Impact of combined α-galactosidase and xylanase enzymes on growth performance, nutrients digestibility, chyme viscosity, and enzymes activity of broilers fed corn–soybean diets. J Anim Sci 99(6):skab088

Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193(1):265–275

Manjuladevi M, Kalaiselvan S (2019) Applications of UV-Visible and FT-IR spectral analysis in effluent treatment. OMICS International, ebooks ISBN: 978–1- 63278–014–0.  https://doi.org/10.4172/978-1-63278-014-0-015

Marques S, Pala H, Alves L, Amaral-Collaco M, Gama FM, Gırio F (2003) Characterisation and application of glycanases secreted by Aspergillus terreus CCMI 498 and Trichoderma viride CCMI 84 for enzymatic deinking of mixed office wastepaper. J Biotechnol 100(3):209–219

Miller GL (1959) Use of dinitrosalicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Anal Chem 31(3):426–428

Mishra S, Behera N (2008) Amylase activity of a starch degrading bacteria isolated from soil receiving kitchen wastes. Afr J Biotechnol 7(18)

Mohandass C, Raghukumar C (2005) Biological deinking of inkjet-printed paper using Vibrio alginolyticus and its enzymes. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 32(9):424–429

Mondal S, Biswal D, Pal K, Rakshit S, Kumar Halder S, Mandavgane SA, Bera D, Hossain M, Chandra Mondal K (2022) Biodeinking of waste papers using combinatorial fungal enzymes and subsequent production of butanol from effluent. Biores Technol 353:127078

Mørkbak A, Zimmermann W (1998) Deinking of mixed office paper, old newspaper and vegetable oil-based ink printed paper using cellulases, xylanases and lipases. Prog Pap Recycl 7(2):14–21

Mørkbak A, Degn P, Zimmermann W (1999) Deinking of soy bean oil based ink printed paper with lipases and a neutral surfactant. J Biotechnol 67(2–3):229–236

Morozova VV, Gusakov AV, Andrianov RM, Pravilnikov AG, Osipov DO, Sinitsyn AP (2010) Cellulases of Penicillium verruculosum. Biotechnol J 5(8):871–880

Moubasher A, Soliman Z (2011) Aspergillus assiutensis, a new species from the air of grapevine plantation. Egypt J Basic Appl Mycol 2(1):83–90

Naeem M, Manzoor S, Abid M-U-H, Tareen MBK, Asad M, Mushtaq S, Ehsan N, Amna D, Xu B, Hazafa A (2022) Fungal proteases as emerging biocatalysts to meet the current challenges and recent developments in biomedical therapies: an updated review. J Fungi 8(2):109

Nathan VK, Rani ME, Rathinasamy G, Dhiraviam KN (2017) Low molecular weight xylanase from Trichoderma viride VKF3 for bio-bleaching of newspaper pulp. BioResources 12(3):5264–5278

Nathan VK, Rani ME, Gunaseeli R, Kannan ND (2018) Enhanced biobleaching efficacy and heavy metal remediation through enzyme mediated lab-scale paper pulp deinking process. J Clean Prod 203:926–932

Pala H, Mota M, Gama FM (2004) Enzymatic versus chemical deinking of non-impact ink printed paper. J Biotechnol 108(1):79–89

Parab P, Khandeparker R (2021) Xylanolytic enzyme consortia from Bacillus sp. NIORKP76 for improved biobleaching of kraft pulp. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 44(12):2513–2524

Patel K, Dudhagara P (2020) Optimization of xylanase production by Bacillus tequilensis strain UD-3 using economical agricultural substrate and its application in rice straw pulp bleaching. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 30:101846

Pathak P, Bhardwaj NK, Singh AK (2011) Optimization of chemical and enzymatic deinking of photocopier waste paper. BioResources 6(1):447–463

Pathak P, Sango C, Sabharwal A, Kapoor R, Shukla P, Bhardwaj NK (2022) Cellulase-assisted deinking approach for the recycling of mixed office waste papers and its quality improvement.

Pimentel M, Oturan N, Dezotti M, Oturan MA (2008) Phenol degradation by advanced electrochemical oxidation process electro-Fenton using a carbon felt cathode. Appl Catal B 83(1–2):140–149

Raj A, Kumar S, Haq I, Singh SK (2014) Bioremediation and toxicity reduction in pulp and paper mill effluent by newly isolated ligninolytic Paenibacillus sp. Ecol Eng 71:355–362

Ramírez Casillas R, Ramírez Valdovinos E, Carrillo Parra A, Dávalos Olivares F, Navarro Arzate F (2018) Deinking of laser printing with ultrasound of intensive action to obtain high purity cellulose. Rev Mex Cienc Forestales 9(46):80–101

Reid I, Ricard M (2000) Pectinase in papermaking: solving retention problems in mechanical pulps bleached with hydrogen peroxide. Enzyme Microb Technol 26(2):115–123

Roncero M, Torres A, Colom J, Vidal T (2000) Using xylanase before oxygen delignification on TCF bleaching. Influence on fibre surfaces by SEM. Process Biochem 36(1–2):45–50

Saini S, Chutani P, Kumar P, Sharma KK (2020) Development of an eco-friendly deinking process for the production of bioethanol using diverse hazardous paper wastes. Renew Energy 146:2362–2373

Satapathy S, Rout JR, Kerry RG, Thatoi H, Sahoo SL (2020) Biochemical Prospects of Various Microbial Pectinase and Pectin: An Approachable Concept in Pharmaceutical Bioprocessing. Front Nutr 7

Saxena A, Singh Chauhan P (2017) Role of various enzymes for deinking paper: a review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 37(5):598–612

Senturk HB, Ozdes D, Gundogdu A, Duran C, Soylak M (2009) Removal of phenol from aqueous solutions by adsorption onto organomodified Tirebolu bentonite: Equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic study. J Hazard Mater 172(1):353–362

Sežun M, Karlovits I, Kavčič U (2023) Chemical and enzymatic deinking efficiency of agricultural and industrial waste fiber-based paper packaging. J Sci Food Agric 103(3):1069–1076

Shah N, Ramamurthy V, Kothari R (1991) Comparative profiles of fungal alpha amylase production by submerged and surface fermentation. Biotech Lett 13(5):361–364

Sharma P, Tripathi S, Chandra R (2021) Highly efficient phytoremediation potential of metal and metalloids from the pulp paper industry waste employing Eclipta alba (L) and Alternanthera philoxeroide (L): Biosorption and pollution reduction. Biores Technol 319:124147

Sharma P, Tripathi S, Chaturvedi P, Chandra R (2020) Characterization of autochthonous bacteria capable for degradation of residual organic pollutants of pulp paper mill effluent by biostimulation process J Pure Appl Microbiol. 2020; 14 (2): 1181–1194. https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM . 14.2. 13 The Author (s) 2020. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4

Singh A, Kaur A, Yadav RD, Mahajan R (2019) An efficient eco-friendly approach for recycling of newspaper waste. 3 Biotech 9:1–7

Singh A, Varghese LM, Yadav RD, Mahajan R (2020) A pollution reducing enzymatic deinking approach for recycling of mixed office waste paper. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:45814–45823

Sridevi A, Ramanjaneyulu G, Suvarnalatha Devi P (2017) Biobleaching of paper pulp with xylanase produced by Trichoderma asperellum. 3 Biotech 7(4):266

Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D, Filipski A, Kumar S (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30(12):2725–2729

Teather RM, Wood PJ (1982) Use of Congo red-polysaccharide interactions in enumeration and characterization of cellulolytic bacteria from the bovine rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 43(4):777–780

Torres A, Roncero M, Colom J, Pastor F, Blanco A, Vidal T (2000) Effect of a novel enzyme on fibre morphology during ECF bleaching of oxygen delignified Eucalyptus kraft pulps. Biores Technol 74(2):135–140

Tseng M-J, Yap M-N, Ratanakhanokchai K, Kyu KL, Chen S-T (2002) Purification and characterization of two cellulase free xylanases from an alkaliphilic Bacillus firmus. Enzyme Microb Technol 30(5):590–595

Tsuchida O, Yamagata Y, Ishizuka T, Arai T, Yamada J-I, Takeuchi M, Ichishima E (1986) An alkaline proteinase of an alkalophilic Bacillus sp. Curr Microbiol 14:7–12

Virk AP, Puri M, Gupta V, Capalash N, Sharma P (2013) Combined enzymatic and physical deinking methodology for efficient eco-friendly recycling of old newsprint. PLoS One 8(8):e72346

Vyas S, Lachke A (2003) Biodeinking of mixed office waste paper by alkaline active cellulases from alkalotolerant Fusarium sp. Enzyme Microb Technol 32(2):236–245

Wang T, Wang F, Ma R, Tian Y (2022) Enzymatically modified starch for paper surface sizing: Enzymes with different action modes and sites. Carbohyd Polym 291:119636

Wipusaree N, Sihanonth P, Piapukiew J, Sangvanich P, Karnchanatat A (2011) Purification and characterization of a xylanase from the endophytic fungus Alternaria alternata isolated from the Thai medicinal plant, Croton oblongifolius Roxb. Afr J Microbiol Res 5(31):5697–5712

Wu Z, Franke M, Ondruschka B, Zhang Y, Ren Y, Braeutigam P, Wang W (2011) Enhanced effect of suction-cavitation on the ozonation of phenol. J Hazard Mater 190(1–3):375–380

Xu Q, Wang Y, Qin M, Fu Y, Li Z, Zhang F, Li J (2011) Fiber surface characterization of old newsprint pulp deinked by combining hemicellulase with laccase-mediator system. Biores Technol 102(11):6536–6540

Yousef RI, El-Eswed B, Ala’a H (2011) Adsorption characteristics of natural zeolites as solid adsorbents for phenol removal from aqueous solutions: kinetics, mechanism, and thermodynamics studies. Chem Eng J 171(3):1143–1149

Zollner HK, Schroeder LR (1998) Enzymatic deinking of nonimpact printed white office paper with α-amylase. Tappi J 81(3):166–170

Download references

Acknowledgements

DST Women Scientist Scheme-B (Grant. No. DST/WOS-B/2018/1707) to Dr. Aiman Tanveer is acknowledged.

Funding provided by the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi in the form of the DST Women Scientist Scheme-B (Grant. No. DST/WOS-B/2018/1707) to Dr. Aiman Tanveer is acknowledged.

Author information

Aiman Tanveer and Supriya Gupta contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Biotechnology, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, 273009, Uttar Pradesh, India

Aiman Tanveer, Supriya Gupta, Shruti Dwivedi, Sangeeta Yadav & Dinesh Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AT prepared the overall first draft and conceptualized it. SG performed the experiments and compiled the results. SD prepared the Figure and Tables. SY reviewed and corrected the first draft of the manuscript. DY supervised the research work, finalized the overall content, improved the language, and prepared the final draft for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dinesh Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 752 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tanveer, A., Gupta, S., Dwivedi, S. et al. Recycling of printed Xerographic paper using Aspergillus assiutensis enzyme cocktail: an integrated approach to sustainable development. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33780-2

Download citation

Received : 26 August 2023

Accepted : 20 May 2024

Published : 30 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33780-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Xerox paper
• Fungal treatment
• Aspergillus assiutensis
• Enzymatic deinking
• Chemi-enzymatic deinking
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research