Exercise 1: The Problem of Objectivity

Edward Hallett Carr: What Is History?(1965)

  1. According to Carr (p. 10), “the belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectivity and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy.” Explain this in your own words.
  1. In your own words, explain Carr’s statement on p. 9: “It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue.” Provide an example.
  1. In your own words, explain Carr’s statement on p. 33: “I am convinced that, for any historian worth the name, the two processes of what economists call “input” and “output” go on simultaneously and are, in practice parts of a single process. If you try to separate them, or give one priority over the other, you fall into one of two heresies. Either you write scissors-and-paste history without meaning or significance; or you write propaganda or historical fiction, and merely use facts of the past to embroider a kind of writing which has nothing to do with history.”

Howard Becker, “Whose Side Are We On?” (1966)

  1. What is Becker’s answer to those who urge sociologists “not to take sides, to be neutral and do research that is technically correct and value free”?
  1. Explain the following statement (p. 243): “And thus we see why we accuse ourselves of bias only when we take the side of the subordinate.”
  1. If taking one side or the other is inescapable,as Becker argues, then how does he escape the conclusion that one person’s knowledge claims is as good as the next person’s, thus negating the value of social science altogether?

Bruce Lambert, “At 50, Levittown,” New York Times (Dec 28, 1997).

A. Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Why do you think Lambert went to Levittown?
  1. List some of the sources that Lambert used in writing his story.
  1. Lambert is a journalist. How do you think a social scientist would go about conducting a study of Levittown?

B. Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Edward Carr writes: “Study the historian before you begin to study the facts.” In this spirit, do a Google search on Bruce Lambert. What can you decipher about where he is “coming from” in terms of his politics and policy orientation?
  1. Examine the title of the article carefully. Does it accurately represent the thrust of the article? Why or why not?
  1. Remember Becker’s question, “Whose Side Are We On?” Whose side is Lambert on? Identify specific passages where that is evident.
  1. Let us shift positions or flip lenses. How do you think most residents of Levittown responded to Lambert’s article? And how would they cast the “facts” in a different light?
  1. To play devil’s advocate (see p. 7 of the syllabus), suppose you were a follower of David Duke’s National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP). How would you interpret Lambert’s “facts” differently? Take, for example, the fact that few African Americans live in Levittown even today.
  1. Now suppose you were a sociologist and received a grant from the NAAWP to conduct an objective study of race in Levittown. What questions would you ask that Lambert shied away from? To use Carr’s metaphor, where would you go “fishing” for facts? To whom would you speak? What questions would you ask?

Exercise 2: MACROSCOPIC ANALYSIS I

C. Wright Mills, “The Personal Troubles of Milieu and the Public Issues of Social Structure” (1959).

  1. In your own words, state what Mills means by “the sociological imagination.”
  1. Discuss Mills’s distinction between “the troubles of milieu” and “the public issues of social structure. Why is this distinction important?
  1. Aside from Mill’s examples, provide TWO examples of a social factor that can be understood either from a microscopic or a macroscopic perspective.

******

Barry Bluestone, “The Inequality Express” (1959).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. What makes Bluestone’s approach macroscopic? How is it different from a microscopic approach to inequality? (Review the distinction between macro and micro approaches in the Glossary, p. 6).
  1. Apply the QMFC schema (Glossary, p. 5). That is, for each of the four elements, write a single sentence indicating:

Q: What is the overarching question that defines the study?

M: What methods (or sources of data) were utilized?

F: What were the main findings?

C: What is Bluestone’s policy agenda for addressing wage inequality?

  1. Nutshell the Table on p. 82. [That is, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, state the main finding or trend indicated by the data.]
  1. Review in your mind the 10 factors that Bluestone identifies as determinants of wage inequality, and be prepared to discuss them in class.

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Check out the Website for The American Prospect on Google (especially the “mission statement”). What does this tell you about the politics of TAP?
  1. Do a Google search to see what you can learn about Barry Bluestone that gives you an idea of where he is “coming from” politically.
  1. Is Bluestone “neutral” about the existence of wage inequality? Or does he have a definite point of view and moral stance on inequality? Explain your answer.
  1. What specific policies does Bluestone propose for remedying wage inequality? If implemented, do you think they would work? Why or why not?
  1. Can you think of one or two policies for reducing income inequality that Bluestone leaves out?
  1. In an op-ed in the New York Times in 2000, two prominent economists wrote:

Inequality is not inequity. Artificial efforts to try to curb wealth gaps invariably do more harm than good. Heavier taxation might narrow the division between rich and poor, but it would be a hollow triumph if it stifled the economy. What American ought to care most about is maintaining our growth, not the red herring of gaps in income and wealth.

How would Bluestone respond? Where do you stand on this issue?

Exercise 3: MACROSCOPIC ANALYSIS II

Edna Bonacich & Richard Appelbaum, “The Return of the Sweatshop”

(2000).

LOGIC OF INQUIRY(Reading WITH the Grain)

1)What makes Bonacich & Appelbaum’s approach macroscopic? How is it different from a microscopic approach of sweatshops?

2)List three “macro” factors that B&A cite in their study.

3)Apply the QMFC schema. That is, for each of the four elements, write a single sentence indicating:

Q. What is the overarching question that defines the study?

M. What methods (or sources of data) were utilized?

F. What were the main findings?

C. Where do B&A end up in terms of social policy?

4)Nutshell Figure 2. That is, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, state the main finding or trend indicated by the data.

5)Nutshell Figure 3. Is this helpful to understanding the constellation of factors that contribute to “the reemergence of sweatshops in the US apparel industry”?

6)What do B&A mean by “the race to the bottom”?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

7)To ask Howard Becker’s question, which side are B&A on? Cite specific passages where this is evident.

8)On p. 298, B&A warn that the apparel industry reflects a general “propensity for an increasing accumulation of wealth at the top and growing oppression and exploitation at the bottom.” What remedies do B&A propose? What policies do they leave out?

9)Playing devil’s advocate (p. 7, Glossary), what is “the other side” of sweatshops? What would the mayors of cities like Los Angeles and New York say to defend or justify the existence of sweatshops? And what would B&A say in return?

Add Devil’s Advocate. Shafly. “What If Marriage Is Bad for You? Also, #9. Other macro factors that BB doesn’t mention. To #2. These findings “add up to something” What, exactly. What generalization of theory would you advance to explain these disparate results?

Exercise 5: DEMOGRAPHY

Susan Bianchi & Lynne Casper, “American Families” (2000)

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Note that Bianchi & Casper titled their report, “American Families” rather than “The American Family.” How do these two titles differ in theirembedded assumptions?
  1. List five major changes in family life over the past half-century.
  1. In the section on “Economic and Family Life” (pp. 30-33), what theoretical debates do they cite about the causes of these changes? Which do you think are more plausible?
  1. Nutshell Figure 6 (p. 22), Figure 9 (p. 28), and Table 7 (p. 33). That is, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, state the main finding or trend.
  1. What factors do you think account for the racial and ethnic differences indicated in Figure 6 (p. 22)?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Note that this study has been published by the Population Reference Bureau, a private organization. Do you think this study could have been published by the U.S. Census? Why or why not?
  1. Overall, where are the authors “coming from” in terms of their values/politics/ point of view? Cite three passages where this is evident.
  1. The authors report many changes in the American family. What moraljudgments do they make about these changes, and how are these evident? (HINT: the judgments are often reflected in the language that they use in talking about the changes. Identify, if you can, FIVE such instances where the words they deploy imply moral judgment—i.e., approval or disapproval.)
  1. Think back to Barry Bluestone’s article on wage inequality. What “macro” or “systemic” factors that Bluestone cites might also shed light on the “changes” in American families?

Exercise 4. THE USES AND MISUSES OF POLLS

Logic of Inquiry: Reading WITH the Grain

  1. In Damn Lies and Statistics, Joel Best writes that there are four basic ways to create “bad social statistics.” Briefly state what they are and give an example of each.

Critical Issues: Reading AGAINST the Grain

  1. Best levels severe criticism on activists. What is his “beef” and do you think it is valid?
  1. With Best’s warnings about “bad social statistics” in mind, for each of the following readings, indicate how statistics are misleading, deceptive, or outright fraudulent.
  • Ruy Teixiera’s, “Happy With Health Care?”
  • Steven Camarotta, “An Examination of Minority Voters’ Views on Immigration.”
  • David Leonhardt, “Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes.”
  • David Cay Johnson, “Breaking News: Tax Revenues Plummeted.”
  • Diana Furchtgott-Roth, “The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth,” Wall Street Journal (7/26/12).
  • “In Job-Placement Rates, Fuzzy Data,” Chronicle of Higher Education (7/16/12).
  • “Perry Misleads on Jobs,” (9/2/14)
  • “Misassigning Blame for Immigration Crisis,” (9/2/14)

Exercise 6. SURVEY RESEARCH (Research Design)

Johnston et al, “National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2013,” Monitoring the FutureI (2013).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. What are the stated objectives of the research?
  1. List the main features of the research design (see the Glossary).
  1. Briefly describe each of the following:

Multi-stage random sample

Sample rationale (why the focus on youth?)

Sample representativeness

Follow-up survey

Sampling error, margin of error

Response rate

Response validity

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. What assumptions are embedded in study’s title: Monitoring the Future?
  1. Who sponsored this research? Is this problematic or not? Explain your answer.
  1. Check out the press release for the 1913 MTF study issued by the Institute on Drug Abuse:
  1. Note the logo for the Institute on Drug Abuse:

What do you make of “The Science of Drug Abuse & Addiction”? What can we say about “the politics” of this organization and the MTF study itself?

  1. Who is the intended audience for this document? Is this just a straightforward reporting of empirical findings, or are they “spinning” or “shading” the results to raise alarms about the scourge of drugs?
  1. Let’s take a closer look at some of the methodological details of their study. First, the sample (p. 68). What are the pros and cons of studying drug use based on a national sample of secondary school students? Who is left out? Does this matter?
  1. Examine Figure 3-2 on p. 84. How much attrition is there from the original sample? Is this serious? Why or why not? How do the authors deal with this problem (pp. 73-4)? Are they convincing or not?
  1. Now take a closer look at the student participation rate (pp. 74-5). Is this a problem for the study? Why or why not?
  1. Let’s take a closer look at the response validity: whether respondents tell the truth (pp. 79-81). How do the authors deal with this issue? Are they convincing or not?

Exercise 7: Survey Research II (Data Analysis)

Johnston et al, “National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2013,” Monitoring the Future (2013).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

  1. Nutshell Table 5-2. In other words, in one or two carefully crafted sentences, indicate the trend in annual use of drugs among students in grade 12.
  1. Use Tables 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4 to construct a chart comparing the rate of use of illicit drugs other than marijuanain 2013, in terms of lifetime, annual, monthly, and daily use. Make the table conform to the following template:

Rate of Use of Illicit Drugs Other than Marijuana, 2013

Lifetime

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Now repeat these comparisons for any illicit drug, for marijuana, for alcohol, and for cigarettes.

  1. Following up on question #2, what do these comparisons suggest about the pattern of drug use? About the risks of addiction? What can you infer about the motivation or practice of those who take drugs?
  1. Table 5-5 abcd present lifetime, annual, monthly, and daily use of different kinds of drugs. What does this show about the prevalence of hard-core, highly addictive drugs among the general population of school youth? Take heroin for example.

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

  1. Last week we discussed the embedded assumptions in “Monitoring the Future.” Do the empiricaldata bear out these assumptions? Why or why not?
  1. In interpreting the findings, what assumptions or judgments do the researchers make about drugs and drug users? Identify specific passages where these are evident.
  1. What interests lie behind the research? In other words, who stands to benefit in the findings and the analysis advanced in the report?
  1. What political uses do you think are made of the data?

Note that the Monitoring the Future website includes this statement: “The results of the study are useful to policymakers at all levels of government, for example, to monitor progress toward national health goals. Study results are also used to monitor trends in substance use and abuse among adolescents and young adults and are used routinely in the White House Strategy on Drug Abuse.”

Also consider the list of Congressional Testimony:

  1. Let’s return to the Introduction, 4th paragraph, and “unpack the assumptions” in the paragraph. Are the assumptions and claims warranted by the data? Why or why not?
  1. To play devil’s advocate. Timothy Leary was a Harvard professor in the 1970s who advocated the use of psychedelic drugs to elevate consciousness.
  1. What do you think Leary would say about the Monitoring the Future Study?
  1. Suppose you received a grant from the (fictitious) Timothy Leary Foundation to study drug use among college students. Further, suppose you shared Leary’s view that the recreational use of drugs is innocuous or even beneficial. What research questions would govern your study? What questions would you put to students about drug use that were not asked in the Monitoring the Future study?
  1. What “macro” or societal factors might help to explain shifts in the trend of drug use? Why do you think drug use peaked in the 1970s and trended downward later?

Exercise 8. Qualitative Research I: Intensive Interviewing

Waldorf, Reinarman, & Murphy: Cocaine Changes: The Experience of Using and Quitting (1991).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

1)In two or three sentences, what is the core argument in Cocaine Changes? Who are they arguing against?

2)What criticisms do they have of previous research?

3)How did they choose their sample and what was the rationale for doing so?

Critical Issues (Reading AGAINST the Grain)

4)Note the “rhetorical frame” that Waldorf et al use at the outset of their book (Chapter 1, p. 1). What does this tell you about where they are coming from?

5)What does the title of their book convey to the reader?

6)Remember Edward Carr’s adage that the historian is like the fisherman who knows where to go for the fish he wants and what kind of tackle and bait to use. With this in mind, consider how the methods deployed by Waldorf et al differ from those deployed in Monitoring the Future. How were the methods each used congenial to their underlying assumptions or ideologies? What does this suggest about “the politics of method”?

7)Do you think the evidence put forward by Waldorf et. al. fully supports their conclusions or their core argument? Explain your answer.

8)Now suppose you were Lloyd Johnston, the director of Monitoring the Future, and were asked to write a book review of Cocaine Changes for the British Journal of Addiction. What criticisms would they level against Cocaine Changes? What would Waldorf et al say in return?

Exercise 9: Qualitative Research II: Intensive Interviewing

Michael Atkinson. “Pretty in Ink: Conformity, Resistance, and Negotiation in Women’s Tattooing,” Sex Roles (2002).

Logic of Inquiry (Reading WITH the Grain)

1)What is the rhetorical frame (see the Glossary. P. 5) that Atkinson used to provide background and rationale for his study?

2)Note that Atkinson provides an extensive literature review of previous research on tattooing. Why does he do this? What gap does he note that provides rationale for his own study?

3)Briefly describe Atkinson’s methods.

4)Note that Atkinson divides his subjects into 3 categories: conformists, resisters, and negotiators. How are they different from one another?

5)In your own words, explain the following passages:

a)“… radically marked bodies tend to subvert hegemonic ideologies about femininity—especially images of the weak, sexually objectified, or otherwise submissive woman.” 220, 2nd par)