Sociologists also use secondary research methods such as other people’s research. These tend to be of a quantitative nature.
The following is an example of a piece of research used by sociologists:
Types of assault occurring between family members
In 1980, R. E. and R. Dobash carried out a study into Violence against Wives. As a part of their research they used the above figures, compiled from statistics gathered in 1974, on domestic assaults reported to the police in all of Edinburgh and one district of Glasgow (cited Taylor et al 2005).
The figures were a secondary source of data and we can see from the above table that the information it contained was qualitative as it was concerned with numbers and statistics. It clearly shows that, at out of 1044 reported incidents, the highest number of assaults, 75.8%, were against wives. The second highest number of assaults was against children at 10.7%. Only 1.1% or assaults were against husbands and the lowest reported incident was mutual assault at 0.6%.
This information would have given them an insight into reported domestic violence crime in 1974 however as it was an old piece of secondary research they would have been somewhat limited with what they could have done with it. For example, they would not have been able to speak directly with those concerned in the report. The accuracy and honesty of the data presented is also something that would have had to been taken into consideration. The reason it was created may not have been in the same interest of Dobash and Dobash so the data could have be manipulated to show certain statistics and not others. They would also have to take into consideration that this would have just been a snapshot of domestic abuse in 1974 as the majority of incidents at that time would have probably gone unreported.
The Sociological Imagination
The sociological imagination is a term created in 1959 by the sociologist C. Wright Mills, an American Marxist who challenged functionalist views in sociology. Mills suggested that if we wanted to obtain a deeper understanding of the issues affecting society, we should look beyond the private issues of individuals and focus on those of the public as a whole. He believed that personal issues only affect the individual and those immediately around them whereas public issues affect the whole of society. Mills went on to state that if we can understand the connection between the two then we can understand how structural forces shape individuals and their actions. An example given in Haralambos & Holborn (2004, Pg xxv) stated that “specific circumstances may lead to one person being unemployed, but when unemployment rates rise in society as a whole then it becomes a public issues that needs to be explained”. Rather than blaming themselves, individuals can hold responsible the social forces that caused them to be into their present state. “To be able to do that is to possess the sociological imagination” (Mills 1959 in Taylor et al, 2005, Pg 1).
This is an important tool for sociologists as it allows them to ask questions such as “what is unemployment? Why does it happen? How does it affect people?” It provides a starting point for sociological analysis and highlights the issues and questions that they need to consider (Bessant & Watts, 2001, Pg 29). It provides them with an overview of the bigger picture of society and encourages them to question the “economic and political institutions of society, not just the actions of individuals” (Haralambos & Holborn, 2004, Pg xxv).
Sociological Perspectives: Functionalism and Marxism
Marxism and Functionalism are part of the social systems perspective which views society as a system and places emphasis on the structure of society and its power to determine individual behaviour.
Social Systems
Conflict Consensus
Marxism is the most influential of conflict theories and is named after its founder, Karl Marx. He saw society as groups, with some gaining economically at the expense of others. He broke it down into two parts: the Infrastructure and Superstructure. The infrastructure was the economics of society, and it was this that shaped the superstructure, the political, legal, educational systems etc. (Taylor et al, 2005, Pg 16)
Marxism breaks society down into the ruling class and the subject class. The ruling class own the ‘means of production’ the subject class sell them their labour. Marxists theories are based on the conflicting relationships between these two social groups.
Marxism is useful in analysing society because it is concerned with understanding social structures. It does not look at the individual, just groups and social classes. This allows sociologists to get an overview of society and they can analyse the interaction and relationships arising from the conflicting classes.
However, in basing all issues purely on class systems and economic factors, Marxists are assuming that everyone’s problems are the same. It is not a very detailed approach and therefore is possible to miss other important contributing factors. It does not look at non-economic sociological issues such as those concerned with ethnicity, disability and geographical location. Feminists would say that it ignores gender related issues and social action theorists might argue that an individual’s interpretations are overlooked (Sociology.org.uk, 2005) and that it makes individuals look like puppets who have no control over their lives. Functionalists might argue that social relationships should be examined on a consensual basis.
Taylor et al (2005, Pg 211) suggest that the existence of a ruling class in today’s modern society is doubtful due to the spread of wealth. A growing number of employees and individuals now own shares in companies and shares in large private companies are no longer owned by a select few but instead tied up in institutions such as pension funds and insurances companies.
Functionalism
Functionalists see consensus as the primary characteristic of social systems. They believe society is in agreement that we need things to run smoothly; therefore we have shared norms and values. They believe that society works together harmoniously with everyone agreeing to the need for social order. Society is viewed as similar to the human body; all of its parts have a role and a function and rely on each other for survival (family, education, the political system etc).
It is useful for analysing the relationship between the different structures of society the knock on affects. However there are limitations to functionalism in that it is not very detailed. Looking only at the affect of systems ignores the specific needs of individuals. It is a very blaming perspective and solutions tend to look at everything as a whole, if one part of the system is not working then it is ultimately the fault lies with all of the other parts. It is not a very forward thinking perspective as it primarily just wants to maintain the status quo.
Functionalists tend to see only the benefits that various institutional relationships bring to society. Whereas some feminists would argue that the family group can be oppressive and exploitative in favour of men. Marxists would argue that capitalist institutions, such as work, may only be beneficial to a small section of society, rather than to society as a whole (www.sociology.org.uk 2005). Post-modernists would argue that it doesn’t take the free will of the individual into account enough.
Conclusion
Marxism and Functionalism are similar in their viewpoint because they both come under the same social systems perspective however functionalism is concerned with keeping the status quo and not rocking the boat but is this actually conformism in disguise? Marxism is more radical way of thinking as it is ultimately about pursuing change. Both perspectives are valid viewpoints and each has their own merits. I think the UK runs as a functionalist society which can be demonstrated if we look at family as an example: it relies on the government for welfare and support, on education systems to educate children so that they can go into the workforce and create revenue for the economy. The majority of society agrees that these are our common norms and values. This is not to say that there are no elements of Marxism present. Ultimately workers are still paid as little as possible, still making ‘fat cat’ bosses ‘fatter’ and those in power still have more sway economically and politically than an individual citizen.
Bibliography
Taylor, P, Richardson, J et al, 2005
Sociology in Focus. 1st Edition
Ormskirk: Causeway Press
Haralambos, M & Holborn, M, 2004
Sociology. Themes and Perspectives. 6th Edition
London: Harper Collins
Bessant, J, Watts, R, 2001
Sociology Australia, 2nd Edition
Australia: Allen & Unwin,
Accessed online at:
Date: 17th Dec 2007
Marxism: Some General Points of Criticism, 2005
Sociology.org.uk
Available from:
Accessed: 14th December 2007
Functionalism: Basic Principles, 2005
Sociology.org.uk
Available from:
Accessed: 14th December 2007