Would You Like Salt with that Sociological Study?

I recently read an opinion article in the local newspaper entitled, “A Grain of Salt with Sociological Studies.” The author and weekly columnist, Dan McLaughlin, argues that we must take sociological studies with a particularly large chunk of salt because, unlike hard scientific experiments, they are at the mercy of the time, place and specific circumstance in which they are conducted. At first, I wanted to dismiss the article entirely. What does this guy know about sociological research? Is he seriously implying that hard scientific experiments shouldn’t be scrutinized for biases and lack of objectivity? Personally, I think he was (which is ludicrous, by the way). The hard sciences are often looked upon as objective and factual, scientists as truth-givers. However, ask any of the hard scientists out there and they will tell you that their data can also be manipulated, that there is always some bias in what is studied, how it is studied, and what is published for the world to read.

So, actually I think our fried, Dan McLaughlin makes an excellent point. Of course we should look at sociological studies with a critical eye. Isn’t that our job as scholars, to not take for granted the information that we are given, what might seem obvious? Isn’t it our job to question? So yes Dan, we should be checking definitions, and methodology and asking about grand inferences made from small studies and about conclusions based on huge data sets.

But in no way does our duty to question sociology make it any less important. Most of us are not scientists in labs, creating drugs to cure diseases, but I argue that we are concerned with saving lives. We are the ones who understand and explain how institutions interact to create a system where some people are far more likely to die earlier because they live in poverty, who are more likely to be imprisoned, who are more likely to commit suicide because of stigma associated with their identities, who are living lives of far poorer quality because of social factors, not any internal condition. We are the ones who can advocate for solutions to fixable social issues, issues that seriously hamper the ability to live long and fulfilling lives for so many people.

I do not claim to know all there is to know about sociology. I am still learning about the discipline that lit a fire under me nearly four years ago. I want to defend it. I want people to see the necessity of sociology. But I must realize its flaws. Like so many other disciplines, sociology is ever changing and growing, adapting to the very thing that it attempts to understand. If it never changed, I wouldn’t even be here writing this—no woman would.  Thus, I am thankful to have read Mr. McLaughlin’s editorial, if only to make me think a little harder about the need for effective critique and inquiry, and why sociology is truly important despite its inability to recreate historical occurrences or rid itself of human bias (something, by the way, that no science can do).

So next time you read a sociological study, any study really, take the time to ask some questions. How did the author collect her/his/their data?  What conclusions did she/he/they make and are they valid based on the data? Why was this study published over others? And even if you don’t read sociological studies, you can still be critical (not negatively critical, but questioning critical) of what you read in the newspaper or watch on TV or hear from your sociologist cousin. Sometimes tough questions start really great, enlightening conversations. 

http://www.post-journal.com/page/content.detail/id/657817/A-Grain-Of-Salt-With-Sociological-Studies.html