Chapter 2—The Tools of Sociology: An Introduction
Think about it Critically
What Is a Scientific “Theory”?
Sometimes people mistakenly equate the word theory with a hunch or a guess. For example, you may hear, “Oh,
theoretically speaking, it might be true.” Such a use of the word theory is a mistake from a scientist’s point of view. Instead,
in the precise language of science, the term theory refers to the best way to account for a set of observations at the present.
In other words, a theory is a simplified model of how the actual world is believed to work. Sometimes people think a theory
tests reality directly. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Reality is too complicated; any model that included all details of
reality would be unimaginably hard to follow! So theories try to simplify social relationships down to their essence.
Also, two people looking at the same data may see different things depending on what they expect to see.
What you saw—a vase or two facial profiles—when you viewed the figure depended on meaning that was imposed from
inside your head and may very well be different from what others saw (even though the figure itself is the same “data”). So
which is “reality,” the vase or the profiles? As you will recognize from this example, it is impossible to see reality directly
without imposing meaning on it based on your own preconceptions. Even emotional needs play a part, if the problem is
important people tend to perceive what they need to perceive when looking at data.
Because it is impossible to view reality directly, scientists try to build models of reality and make predictions by use of the
models. If the predictions made from the model come true, the model must be something like whatever reality actually is. By
changing the model, scientists try to make its predictions turn out better and better.
Each of the theoretical perspectives in the course builds a particular model of reality. Some choose a different level of analysis
to build their model; some simplify reality in different ways. So no one theory is always correct.
What If a Theory Fails When a Prediction Is Made?
Some people think that if a theory fails to confirm a hypothesis, the theory is “no good.” However, what this really means
usually is that the scientist needs to revise the model to do a better job of prediction. Scientists actually hope to replace the
current way of thinking with something that organizes observations even better than in the past. This is a unique way of
thinking. Few, if any, other thought systems actually seek to replace their own current version of things.
For most of human history, people (such as Aristotle) thought that the sun went around the Earth. (After all it’s intuitively
“obvious” that it does; anyone can see that any day. However, intuition makes for terrible science!). However, some
astronomers noted that occasionally some of the planets seemed to "back up" for a few days in the night sky. (This
happens because the inner planets move faster than the outer planets, which changes our point of view so that sometimes
another planet appears to reverse direction for a few days.)
To account for this, many astronomers (such as Ptolemy) tried to explain the apparent backing up by adding “epicycles”
(small circles the planet was said to make around the line of its orbit) to the orbits of the planets. This is what scientists
should try to do—see if the old model can be adapted to work (and usually it can).
By this method, astronomers could account for all but a small percentage of their observations of the plants’ motions. Most
of us probably would have said, “Good enough.” However, it turned out that to account for that
, small percentage, one had to move the sun to the center of the solar system and move the Earth out of the center.
All the teachings of the church till then, however, were based on the “certainty” that humans and their Earth “had” to be at
the center of everything. Many scientists were subsequently tried by the Inquisition, some burned at the stake (like
Giordano Bruno), and others put under arrest for years (like Galileo).
Eventually, however, after many decades, the new theory won acceptance because it accounted for the facts better than
any other model available. When this happens, when the small but continuous effects of scientific studies accumulate to
force a revolutionary new view of things, a paradigm shift is said to have taken place. In sociology, as we shall see, a
new theory called “complexity theory” is currently the chief contender as the next paradigm shift. Many people believe
the occurrence of a paradigm shift means the old theory was “wrong” and must be thrown away. However, what usually
happens is the older theories turn out to be special cases of a broader, more inclusive new way of looking at the overall
picture. Seldom is such revision as moving the Earth out of the center of the cosmos required!
Critical Thinking
Imagine that we are trying to develop a theory about which types of schools are most effective for minority students.
We decide to use high school graduation as the measure of success. We know that the general finding is that
graduation rates are higher for all students (regardless of race) in private schools compared to public schools.
Therefore, our hypothesis is:
Minority students from private schools have a higher graduation rate than minority students from public schools.
We gather data and analyze it, and find that, indeed, private school minority students have a higher graduation rate.
But, we’re not satisfied. There are lots of different types of private schools. Do graduation rates for minority students vary
by the type of school? We do know that non-religious private schools have higher graduation rates in general than do
religious private schools. Therefore, our second hypothesis will be:
Minority students from non-religious private schools have a higher graduation rate than minority students from non-
religious private schools.
Again, we analyze our data. This time, though, we find that our hypothesis is not supported! There is actually no difference
in graduation rates for minority students between religious and non-religious schools.
We could stop here and be satisfied that we have a theory about the most effective type of schools for minority students .
But…we’re still curious. Does the type of religious school matter? To find out, we set up a third hypothesis to attempt to
further refine our theory about the effectiveness of schools for minority students:
Minority students from Catholic schools have a higher graduation rate than minority students in non-Catholic
religious schools.
This time when we analyze the data, we find that we are correct! The effect is so strong that Catholic school
students have an even higher chance of graduating than do non-religious private school students. We have
found that Catholic schools provide minority students with the highest chance of graduating from high school.
Critical Thinking exercise:
Minority students from Catholic schools with one or both parents having 4 or more years of a college education have a
higher graduation rate than minority students in non-Catholic religious schools with one or both parents having 4 or
more years of a college education.
Can I Do Science All by Myself?
Social science (like all science) is too complicated to be anything but a group enterprise. One person could never hope to
understand all of science. So scientists publish their findings in “peer-reviewed” journals so that other
Think about it Critically
What Is a Scientific “Theory”?
Sometimes people mistakenly equate the word theory with a hunch or a guess. For example, you may hear, “Oh,
theoretically speaking, it might be true.” Such a use of the word theory is a mistake from a scientist’s point of view. Instead,
in the precise language of science, the term theory refers to the best way to account for a set of observations at the present.
In other words, a theory is a simplified model of how the actual world is believed to work. Sometimes people think a theory
tests reality directly. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Reality is too complicated; any model that included all details of
reality would be unimaginably hard to follow! So theories try to simplify social relationships down to their essence.
Also, two people looking at the same data may see different things depending on what they expect to see.
What you saw—a vase or two facial profiles—when you viewed the figure depended on meaning that was imposed from
inside your head and may very well be different from what others saw (even though the figure itself is the same “data”). So
which is “reality,” the vase or the profiles? As you will recognize from this example, it is impossible to see reality directly
without imposing meaning on it based on your own preconceptions. Even emotional needs play a part, if the problem is
important people tend to perceive what they need to perceive when looking at data.
Because it is impossible to view reality directly, scientists try to build models of reality and make predictions by use of the
models. If the predictions made from the model come true, the model must be something like whatever reality actually is. By
changing the model, scientists try to make its predictions turn out better and better.
Each of the theoretical perspectives in the course builds a particular model of reality. Some choose a different level of analysis
to build their model; some simplify reality in different ways. So no one theory is always correct.
What If a Theory Fails When a Prediction Is Made?
Some people think that if a theory fails to confirm a hypothesis, the theory is “no good.” However, what this really means
usually is that the scientist needs to revise the model to do a better job of prediction. Scientists actually hope to replace the
current way of thinking with something that organizes observations even better than in the past. This is a unique way of
thinking. Few, if any, other thought systems actually seek to replace their own current version of things.
For most of human history, people (such as Aristotle) thought that the sun went around the Earth. (After all it’s intuitively
“obvious” that it does; anyone can see that any day. However, intuition makes for terrible science!). However, some
astronomers noted that occasionally some of the planets seemed to "back up" for a few days in the night sky. (This
happens because the inner planets move faster than the outer planets, which changes our point of view so that sometimes
another planet appears to reverse direction for a few days.)
To account for this, many astronomers (such as Ptolemy) tried to explain the apparent backing up by adding “epicycles”
(small circles the planet was said to make around the line of its orbit) to the orbits of the planets. This is what scientists
should try to do—see if the old model can be adapted to work (and usually it can).
By this method, astronomers could account for all but a small percentage of their observations of the plants’ motions. Most
of us probably would have said, “Good enough.” However, it turned out that to account for that
, small percentage, one had to move the sun to the center of the solar system and move the Earth out of the center.
All the teachings of the church till then, however, were based on the “certainty” that humans and their Earth “had” to be at
the center of everything. Many scientists were subsequently tried by the Inquisition, some burned at the stake (like
Giordano Bruno), and others put under arrest for years (like Galileo).
Eventually, however, after many decades, the new theory won acceptance because it accounted for the facts better than
any other model available. When this happens, when the small but continuous effects of scientific studies accumulate to
force a revolutionary new view of things, a paradigm shift is said to have taken place. In sociology, as we shall see, a
new theory called “complexity theory” is currently the chief contender as the next paradigm shift. Many people believe
the occurrence of a paradigm shift means the old theory was “wrong” and must be thrown away. However, what usually
happens is the older theories turn out to be special cases of a broader, more inclusive new way of looking at the overall
picture. Seldom is such revision as moving the Earth out of the center of the cosmos required!
Critical Thinking
Imagine that we are trying to develop a theory about which types of schools are most effective for minority students.
We decide to use high school graduation as the measure of success. We know that the general finding is that
graduation rates are higher for all students (regardless of race) in private schools compared to public schools.
Therefore, our hypothesis is:
Minority students from private schools have a higher graduation rate than minority students from public schools.
We gather data and analyze it, and find that, indeed, private school minority students have a higher graduation rate.
But, we’re not satisfied. There are lots of different types of private schools. Do graduation rates for minority students vary
by the type of school? We do know that non-religious private schools have higher graduation rates in general than do
religious private schools. Therefore, our second hypothesis will be:
Minority students from non-religious private schools have a higher graduation rate than minority students from non-
religious private schools.
Again, we analyze our data. This time, though, we find that our hypothesis is not supported! There is actually no difference
in graduation rates for minority students between religious and non-religious schools.
We could stop here and be satisfied that we have a theory about the most effective type of schools for minority students .
But…we’re still curious. Does the type of religious school matter? To find out, we set up a third hypothesis to attempt to
further refine our theory about the effectiveness of schools for minority students:
Minority students from Catholic schools have a higher graduation rate than minority students in non-Catholic
religious schools.
This time when we analyze the data, we find that we are correct! The effect is so strong that Catholic school
students have an even higher chance of graduating than do non-religious private school students. We have
found that Catholic schools provide minority students with the highest chance of graduating from high school.
Critical Thinking exercise:
Minority students from Catholic schools with one or both parents having 4 or more years of a college education have a
higher graduation rate than minority students in non-Catholic religious schools with one or both parents having 4 or
more years of a college education.
Can I Do Science All by Myself?
Social science (like all science) is too complicated to be anything but a group enterprise. One person could never hope to
understand all of science. So scientists publish their findings in “peer-reviewed” journals so that other
