Measurement in Sociology

Abstract

American sociologists appear to agree that social science should be as quantitative as possible, that subjective phenomena can be measured only through objective indexes, that statistics can be used to verify or disqualify hypotheses, and that statistics may have great practical value; probably also than statistics may suggest some explanation. They agree also that non-quantitative methods should be used where quantitative methods have not yet been devised, but only there. The issues of the controversy are: (1) Can knowledge of social phenomena be completely reduced to quantitative expression? (2) Can we know other people except from behavioristic data? (3) Is there no group of choice among research projects except the competence of their sponsors? The value of research depends partly on the need for knowledge for practical use; needed knowledge may be such as can be had only by non-quantitative methods. The term "science" may not be granted, in the long run, to non-quatitative knowledge, but in that case the aims of sociology should be stated to include other elements besides the results of scientific research. Scientific knowledge is built up from acquaintance knowledge, much more of which is needed before statistical inquiry is effective in some sociological problems. The data of physical science are taken from raw experience in such form that they can be measured, but to do this in social research practically destroys the character of the phenomena studied. Sociological knowledge is based, in part, on "insight," which is inference concerning what is not directly known to sense experience. Of four recent attempts at the measurement of social phenomena, one proves upon analysis not to be concerned with social phenomena in the strictest sense; the others are all attempts to measure attitudes. Attitudes are subjective, and it seems doubtful wheter reliable knowledge of them can be had directly from objective indexes, or in highly quantitative form. Rice's method of studying attitudes through the analysis of votes in actual elections in immune to certain criticisms, but is limited by the availability of data. It does not seem that quantitative techniques for studying attitudes have been such as to show how the knowledge of attitudes that is needed can be had except under certain favorable conditions.