Depending on the sociologists standpoint it will determine not only what research methods are used but also they views to particular methods. Sociologists influenced by positivism such as Durkheim would argue in favour of the use of official statistics and this can be related back to their theoretical standpoint. Sociologists influenced by positivism believe that only science can provide the objective ‘truth’ or facts about the world. Human nature is determined by social forces (generally referred to as ‘laws’ or ‘social facts’) beyond the control of society’s members and this is a product of the way in which societies are organised. They therefore believe sociology should be a scientific discipline based on the logic and methods of natural sciences. Thus the job of sociologists is to uncover the social laws that govern human behaviour. It is this viewpoint that was taken by sociologist Durkheim. Durkheim agreed sociologists should confine themselves to social facts, information about phenomena that can be observed and classified. He went onto suggest that objectivity and value- freedom was necessary and indeed achievable by emulating methodology of the natural sciences. In Durkheim’s study of suicide he chose to study suicide because of the availability of social facts (suicide statistics) from all over Europe. Durkheim used official statistics, as he believed they were reliable, objective and systematically collected and thus were a step in the direction of emulating scientific methods. Positivists believe that it is possible to observe society and collect information such as social facts, just like a scientist in a lab. With these facts it is possible to produce statistics. In Durkheim’s study of suicide he collected data on social facts such as suicide rate and membership to religions. With these social facts positivists can seek to find correlations between different social facts. Thus an advantage of official statistics is that they can be manipulated to show trends over time. For example, in terms of weight, health and age statistics. In reference to Durkheim’s suicide study statistics enabled him to find correlation between religion and a high suicide rate and between gender and a high suicide rate. According to Positivists any problems with official statistics can be ironed out. We simply need to employ more accurate methods in order to account, objectively for certain patterns of behaviour in society. Therefore, sociologists influenced by positivism would argue sociologists should make use of official statistics as they go towards making sociology a science.
In contrast, despite the advantages of official statistics there is much suspicion surrounding the use of statistics. This is not only from sociologists such as J. D. Douglas, Maxwell Atkinson and Cicourel but also from sociological theories such as Marxism and Feminism. According to Tim May the criticisms of official statistics can be broadly categorised under 3 headings, the realist school of thought, the institutionalist school of thought finally the radical school of thought. It is the institutionalist school of thought that shall be looked at in greater depth. Sociologists influenced by the institutional school of thought reject the use of statistics for measuring or determining the causes of the social facts to which they claim to refer. Institutionalist also reject the idea that official statistics are objective and neither do they find them valid or reliable. For institutionalists statistics tell us more about an organisations behaviour or the discretionary actions of individuals. Therefore, they see official statistics as socially constructed.
This is certainly the viewpoint taken by sociologist Maxwell- Atkinson and J.D. Douglas in their critique of Durkheim’s study of suicide. For Atkinson and Douglas suicide is a social construction determined by the coroner’s report and how they categorise a certain type of death. Atkinson argued that a real rate of suicide did not exist. According to Atkinson statistics are produced by officials whom act as ‘agents of social control’ and thus have the ability and power to label certain deaths as suicide or not. Atkinson agues that coroner’s have a common sense theory of suicide, for example if the information of the deceased background fits these explanations then a verdict of suicide is likely. Thus suicide can be seen as an interpretation, which come from a set of taken for granted assumptions. For example, a single, unemployed male found dead in an isolated from a gunshot wound is more likely to be classed as a suicide than a married man found in the same conditions. Therefore, in terms of examining social action it can only be best understood by interpreting the meanings and motives an individual attacks to behaviour. In order to do this the researcher needs to ‘step into the shoes’ of the actor. For sociologists such as Maxwell and Douglas this can only be best done through qualitative methods and therefore not the use of quantitative methods such as statistics. Similarly, Aaron Cicourel who examined the treatment of delinquency in two Californian claims that the stereotypes held by the police and juvenile officers lead to youths from lower social classes being more likely to be seen as a delinquent. He argues that arrests rest heavily on the police’s idea of a ‘typical delinquent’. He goes on to suggest that if the individual approximates to the stereotypical image of a delinquent held b y the juvenile officer, then a charge is more likely. Therefore, Cicourel sees statistics produced by official agencies as socially constructed and not a true representation of the reality. Thus in relation to the question it would appear from Cicourel’s standpoint statistics should be treated with extreme caution as crime statistics in particular can be subject to the assumptions and prejudices of agents of social control. Furthermore, Paul Gilroy argued that there is a myth around black criminality and law enforcers such as the Police have negative stereotypes towards ethnic minorities. Thus due to the prejudices and stereotypes of such ethnic minorities the police arrest more members of ethnic minorities regardless of whether they have committed an offence.
In response to both positivist and institutionlist views a number of conflict (radical) sociologists have developed alternatives perspectives on official statistics. They argue that official statistics are neither social facts nor subjective meanings. Instead they consist of information which is systematically distorted by power structures in society. Ian Miles and John Irvine argue that official statistics are ‘developed in support of the system power and domination that is modern capitalism’. Unlike Marxism who argue official statistics are part of the state’s ideological apparatus (will be discussed in depth later). Miles and Irvine do not believe that statistics produced by the government are complete fabrications because, this would be unable to explain statistics which, seem embarrass or humiliate the government. For example, high crime statistics seem to suggest government policies are failing to work. Thus Miles and Irvine suggest official statistics are produced according to the needs of the various state agencies for information to co-ordinate their activities and justify their programmes. The Marxist critique of official statistics can be used to illustrate this. According to Marxists official statistics are created by the government, which represent bourgeoisie ideology and thus reinforce the capitalist system, which in turn maintains the capitalist structure. According to Marxists, statistics should be treated with caution by sociologists as statistics provide information which help to maintain and justify the power of capitalism. In relation to crime statistics, Marxists suggest they function to protect the interests of the ruling class and divert attention away from corporate crime committed by ruling class capitalists. Therefore, statistics tell us very little about the real level of crime in society and do little to help us understand criminality.
Furthermore, official statistics come under scrutiny from a feminist perspective. Sociologists influenced by feminism such as Ann Oakley are critical of quantitative especially statistics and are critical of ‘male stream’ sociology. Unlike Marxists, for feminist statistics reinforce patriarchy as women are pushed out of statistics. For example, women who are housewives or engaged in domestic work are defined as economically inactive despite the contribution that housework makes to the economy. This is certainly the case taken by Ann Oakley. Furthermore, it is argued that statistics tend to represent the ‘male experience’ and fail to take into account the experience of women. For example, in relation to crime there is an underreporting of crimes within the private sphere, which includes acts of rape, domestic violence and child-abuse. Thus for feminists we cannot understand women’s experience from numerical information and therefore it is necessary to come close to as possible to women’s experience and this is best gained through the use of in-depth sensitive techniques.
Finally, perhaps official statistics should be made more use of in research purposes and not simply dismisses. The use of official statistics are best summed up by the likes of Martin Bulmer. Bulmer notes that while statistics are problematic they are still useful for research purposes. He argues they produce interesting findings on contemporary society and despite their problems have been used by radical and realist researchers alike. Secondly he argues they provide useful empirical data. Finally, with regards to the problems with statistics Bulmer argues that statisticians go to considerable lengths to reduce error. Thus if the researcher is aware of how these errors occur then can attempt to correct them.
In conclusion, it can be seen that official statistics have come under much scrutiny and many sociologists are reluctant to use them mainly because of their theoretical standpoint. It can be seen from above that depending on a sociologists theoretical standpoint will determine the research method they choose. For example, sociologists influenced by positivism are likely to choose quantitative methods such as statistics and questionnaires whereas; sociologists influenced by interpretivism are likely to choose qualitative methods such as interview and observation. However, despite the problematic nature of official statistics it is not simply the case to dismiss them. It can be seen that critiques of official statistics relate to statistics of suicide and crime and delinquency. However, this does not necessarily mean that the problems in these fields should automatically be generalised to all official statistics. Therefore, perhaps it is better to suggest that official statistics as best used in conjunction with qualitative research methods as this would provide the most well rounded research.
