UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Influences on sociologists' research : an empirical study in the sociology of social research Hanson, Candace Pauline 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A8 H35_6.pdf [ 4.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101484.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101484-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101484-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101484-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101484-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101484-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101484-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101484-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101484.ris

Full Text

INFLUENCES ON SOCIOLOGISTS' RESEARCH: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF SOCIAL RESEARCH by CANDACE PAULINE HANSON B.A., University of California, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS . in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1973 In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ABSTRACT S o c i o l o g i s t s a f f i l i a t e d with three u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Western Canada were i n t e r v i e w e d i n a study designed to expl ore important i n f l u e n c e s on c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s . C a t e g o r i e s o f i n f l u e n c e were c o n s t r u c t e d and subjects were grouped a c c o r d i n g to s i m i l a r i t i e s i n mentioned i n f l u e n c e s . I t was found t h a t subjects who mentioned s i m i l a r i n f l u e n c e s on t h e i r r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s d i s p l a y e d other s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the way i n which they r e l a t e d to t h e i r r e s e a r c h t o p i c s and to the d i s c i p l i n e . A typology based on s u b j e c t s ' r e s e a r c h  o r i e n t a t i o n s to t h e i r r e s e a r c h t o p i c s was c o n s t r u c t e d . Evidence presented i n the t h e s i s suggests t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n o f any s o c i o l o g i s t may r e p r e s e n t an important f a c t o r i n determining the k i n d o f r e s e a r c h t h a t he or she produces. The s m a l l sampling i n t h i s study prevented systematic a n a l y s i s of the i n f l u e n c e o f f a c t o r s such as c i t i z e n s h i p and graduate s c h o o l t r a i n i n g as determinants of r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s . However, d a t a presented suggests t h a t the r e s e a r c h o r i e n t a t i o n o f s o c i -o l o g i s t s should be i n c l u d e d , as a v a r i a b l e , i n any l a r g e -s c a l e study o f the e f f e c t s o f c i t i z e n s h i p and graduate t r a i n i n g on the r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out by s o c i o l o g i s t s i n Canada. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER I. CHAPTER II. INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM METHODS OF STUDY AND THE CONSTRUCTED TYPOLOGY A. The Population B. Introduction of the Types C. Illustrations from the Interviews D. Attributes Associated with each Constructed Type CHAPTER III. ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCES ON CURRENT RESEARCH A. Categories of Influence Mentioned B. Smallest Space Analysis C. The Relationship between Research Orientations and Mentioned Influences D. Conclusion DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBJECTS OF EACH RESEARCH ORIENTATION A. Professional A f f i l i a t i o n s B. Sources of Intellectual Influence C. Geographical Locus of Research CHAPTER IV. CHAPTER V. BIBLIOGRAPHY CONCLUSION APPENDICES I V . LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY UNIVERSITY 5 II. CATEGORIES OF INFLUENCE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP 19 TO THE DISCIPLINE . • ' ' III. FREQUENCY OF INFLUENCES BY CATEGORY 20 IV. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SUBJECTS WHO MENTIONED 21 ANY TWO CATEGORIES .V. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SUBJECTS MENTIONING 23 CATEGORY X WHO ALSO MENTION CATEGORY Y VI. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL CATEGORIES MENTIONED 29 IN COMMON BY ANY TWO SUBJECTS VII. PERCENTAGES OF CATEGORIES MENTIONED BY SUBJECT 31 i THAT WERE ALSO MENTIONED BY SUBJECT j VIII. COMPARISON OF RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS OF SUBJECTS 37 WITH MENTIONED INFLUENCES ON THEIR RESEARCH IX. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION AFFILIATIONS BY 43 COUNTRY AND RESEARCH ORIENTATION X. PROFESSIONAL GROUP AFFILIATIONS OF MOST ACTIVE 44 SUBJECTS XI. PERCENTAGES OF SUBJECTS OF EACH RESEARCH ORIENTATION MENTIONING SOCIOLOGISTS AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AS INFLUENTIAL 46 XII. SOCIOLOGISTS CITED MOST FREQUENTLY BY ALL 48 SUBJECTS AS INFLUENTIAL XIII. COMPARISON OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCUS OF RESEARCH 50 OF SUBJECTS BY RESEARCH ORIENTATION XIV. COMPARISON OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCUS OF EMPIRICAL 59 RESEARCH CARRIED OUT BY CANADIAN CITIZENS AND NON-CANADIAN CITIZENS XV. COMPOSITION OF THREE UNIVERSITIES BY SEX 65 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure " Page I. S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE IV 25 II. S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE V, 26 COLUMN SOLUTION III. S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE V, 27 ROW SOLUTION IV. S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE VI. . 3 3 V. S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE VII, COLUMN SOLUTION 34 VI. S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE VII, 35 , ROW SOLUTION v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am g r a t e f u l to P r o f e s s o r Ronald S i l v e r s f o r encouragement and h e l p f u l d i s c u s s i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g the e a r l y stages o f f o r m u l a t i n g the problem and g a t h e r i n g d a t a . H i s c o n t i n u a l i n t e r e s t in^the i s s u e s r a i s e d by the s t u d y , and suggested s o l u t i o n s to problems I encountered, were o f s p e c i a l b e n e f i t . I am a l s o t h a n k f u l f o r the h e l p /" ' g i v e n me by my Chairman, P r o f e s s o r Tom Taveggia. H i s comments on d r a f t s o f the t h e s i s were sometimes d e v a s t a t i n g j b u t always r e l e v a n t . He devoted much time to h e l p i n g me i n the l a t e r stages o f the t h e s i s . I would l i k e to thank a l s o P r o f e s s o r Ricardo M u r a t o r i o and Ms. Diane E r i c k s o n f o r h e l p f u l c o n v e r s a t i o n s and comments on an e a r l i e r d r a f t . P r e s i d e n t Walter Gage, P r o f e s s o r M i c h a e l Ames and P r o f e s s o r George Gray k i n d l y gave a s s i s t a n c e through grants and equipment. Ms. S h e i l a C a r r u t h e r s was most c o n s c i e n t i o u s i n t y p i n g the f i n a l d r a f t o f the t h e s i s . F i n a l l y , thanks go to the 34 s o c i o l o g i s t s who generously gave o f t h e i r time by t a k i n g p a r t i n the i n t e r v i e w s , and to the 6 o t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p r e - t e s t o CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of this thesis i s to present findings generated by a study of factors identified by sociologists as influences on their current research interests. In the Spring of 1972 a series of inter-views were conducted with sociologists in an attempt to gain empirical data bearing on a problem producing much debate in the discipline across Canada. Although inadequately researched, i t has been asserted that variables such as citizenship and country in which graduate training was undertaken act as determining influences on the kind of sociological research that sociologists undertake (CSAA Brief, 1972: 2-4). A pers-pective drawn from the sociology of knowledge^ suggests that factors relating to the personal biography of the sociologist, such as citizen-ship, ethnicity, undergraduate training, etc. do act as determinants on the way the sociologist becomes involved in his or her research interests. The relative influence of various factors, however, and the way i n which they work on sociologists, has not yet been investigated. Within the sociology of sociology two attempts have been made to provide information on the factors that sociologists use to explain the development of their own research interests (Hammond, 1964j Horowitz, 1969). While suggestive, these works do not attempt a systematic study of the relative effect of various influences. Horowitz spoke of the need for more study of this problem: "...we have...a great deal of information about the impact of macro-institutions and large-scale ideological factors which weigh upon the prod-uction of social s c i e n t i f i c information. But we have thus f a r done very l i t t l e i n the area of the intimate factors and the micro - i n s t i t u t i o n s - , such as u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g , c o l l e g i a l r e l a t i o n -ships and cohort formation that obviously have a great bearing on the way work gets done." (1969: 11-12) Other works by Horowitz (1968: 195-220) and Brown (1969) advance typologies of s o c i o l o g i s t s based on d i s t i n c t organizational s t y l e s and ideo l o g i e s . Among s o c i o l o g i s t s at the centre of socio-l o g i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and disputes, Horowitz p o s i t s the "professionalism" type and the "occupationalism" type. The types are based on opposing philosophies of the nature of the s o c i o l o g i c a l e n t e r p r i s e , d i f f e r e n t sorts of reference groups, and varying degrees of emphasis on the research r o l e and teaching r o l e of the s o c i o l o g i s t . Brown adds another category to Horowitz's basic d i s t i n c t i o n ; r h i s types are the " p r o f e s s i o n a l l y oriented", the " d i s c i p l i n e oriented", . and a t h i r d group, the " i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y oriented". Brown's types were based on an empirical study he c a r r i e d out on s o c i o l o g i s t s teaching i n small colleges i n Missouri. Horowitz's types are more extensively a r t i c u l a t e d , although they lack a grounding i n empirical work. This thesis seeks to go beyond the suggestive, but speculative, typologies of Horowitz and the l i m i t e d use made of them by Brown. In the next chapter I w i l l discuss a typology of research o r i e n t a t i o n s that I constructed i n the early stages of analysis of the data i n t h i s study. The influences s o c i o l o g i s t s mentioned as important determinants of t h e i r research i n t e r e s t s w i l l l a t e r be analyzed to see to what extent s i m i l a r sorts of influences are claimed by s o c i o l o g i s t s who are s i m i l a r i n other ways, i . e . i n terms of t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r research. The study of the r e l a t i v e influence of various factors on the development of research i n t e r e s t s should be seen as a f i r s t step i n investigating the relationship between influences on one's research and the sort of research that one produces. Assertions have been made as to the "dominance" of "American models" in Canadian research (CSAA Brief, 1972: 2-0). This study cannot give evidence to negate or con-firm this assertion. It does seek to delineate, from the members' points of view, what factors are important determinants of their own research interests, of their theoretical and methodological perspectives. It does seek to refine previous typologies relating to research orientations with data gained from subjects i n the study and to document the strength of each type among a group of 34 sociologists. It should suggest hyp-otheses that could be tested in a larger study that analyzes the product of distinct research orientations - a study investigating the research actually generated by sociologists. CHAPTER II METHODS OF STUDY AND THE CONSTRUCTED TYPOLOGY A. The Population For the purposes of this study, open-ended interviews were carried out with 34 sociologists at 3 universities i n Western Canada. The questionnaire used i s presented in the Appendix, following a research note on the procedures used i n the data gathering stages of the study. Notes were taken i n 3 of the interviews and the 31 others were taped and transcribed. The table on the following page gives a break-down on inter-views conducted at each university. From the table i t can be seen that 34 of a possible number of 41 sociologists were interviewed. Of the 7 not interviewed (17% of the total possible) there were only 2 refusals. I did not attempt to interview 3 sociologists who were "on leave" at the time the interviews were carried out. The remaining 2 sociologists not interviewed were members of my advisory committee. A former committee member who went "on leave" before the interviews were completed was interviewed and another sociologist was interviewed before he joined the advisory committee. I sought interviews, then, with 36 sociologists and met with 1 refusal each at University B and University C. TABLE I INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY UNIVERSITY Interviewed Not Interviewed Total University A 9 0 9 University B 5 3 8 University C 20 4 24 TOTAL 34 7 4.1 B. Introduction of the Types In the early stages of data analysis, after 8 to 10 inter-views had been transcribed, a f a i r l y consistent natural break dividing the subjects into two groupings began to emerge. In each interview, I could detect a particular relationship expressed by the subject to his or her research that was individually unique, but subjects were also perceived to f a l l into one of two discrete groups. In one group, the motives expressed for carrying out the particular research project stemmed from either, (1) a primary interest in investigating the implications of a particular theoretical perspective as applied to the specific data collected, and/or (2) the desire to refine a particular methodological technique as the primary objective to the collect-ion of certain kinds o f d a t a . This kind of research endeavour, then, was characterized by a primary commitment to investigation of a theoretical problem or the refinement of a methodological technique and a secondary interest in the content of the data. The other grouping of sociologists appeared to be primarily interested i n the i n t r i n s i c nature of the subject studied, as an integrated entity i n i t s e l f . Theoretical implications of aspects of the subject of study were, of course, investigated and these sociol-ogists were concerned with the methodological problems involved in their studies. But these methodological and theoretical concerns were secondary to an overriding concern with the subject of study as i n t r i n s i c a l l y of interest in i t s e l f . While this distinction may appear to reify differences the reader may believe do not or should not exist, the distinction is meant to delineate tendencies among sociologists, tendencies toward a primary orientation to the content i t s e l f or_ the theoretical and/or methodological issues illustrated by such content. While transcribing the remaining interviews i t became clear that the subjects did tend to f a l l into such groupings. The implications of different orientations to the topics of research, and the association of other attitudes clustered with each orientation began to occur to me as questions to be investigated. From the interviews sets of other attributes associated with the two orientations described above were identified. For example, the two clusterings also marked the division for different attitudes toward the discipline: different notions of the goals of sociology, of the relationship of sociology to the other social sciences, natural sciences and the humanities, and of the kinds of problems to which sociologists should address themselves. These qualitative interpretations of the respondents' research orientations are important because they suggest the sorts of things that might determine significantly the character of sociology as i t develops in Canada. Fundamental beliefs pertaining to the "proper" goals of sociology and the relationship of knowledge created and trans-mitted by practitioners of sociology to the "outside world" are the implicit principles that must ultimately determine what gets defined and studied by sociologists. C. Illustrations from the Interviews The quotations from the interviews that follow serve to il l u s t r a t e the Type I and Type II research orientation. As noted above, the Type I research orientation emphasizes a primary commit-ment to the theoretical or methodological concerns extrapolated from one's data and a secondary interest in the substance of study i n i t s concrete "timely" occurrence. The term "type" i s used in the sense described by John McKinneyin the following passage: "...we then define the constructed type as a purposive, planned selection, abstraction, combination and (sometimes) accentuation of a set of c r i t e r i a with empirical referents that serves as a basis for comparison of empirical cases." (1966: 3) One subject spoke of his experience as an undergraduate student as: r "...searching for the most significant set of problems, I became concerned with data analysis and concept formation...". He said later that his present research interest "... comes from a quest for fundamentals on my part. I wanted to know what the most signif-icant theoretical problems were and so I've been mostly concerned with basic research.... My present substantive research i s practically non-existent...". Another subject's principle interest i n the theoretical, and what E. C. Hughes (1959: 405) described as the "timeless" tendency i n the social sciences, i s illustrated by the following statement: "... I discovered that some interesting things could be done with respect to the concept of expectation i t s e l f and I tried to develop a conceptualization for i t and I've been work-ing now on trying to test this conceptualiz-ation and I am moving into formulating this conceptualization i n mathematical terms". 9. Another subject's work was explained as motivated largely by the need to more adequately explain "how the society seemed to be outside...people, how i t was constraining them". The subject stated: "...I began to develop ways of thinking about society which relate back to...(a) Marxist account of alien-ation which is not an account of alienation...simply in terms of power relations or in the control that an individual has but i t is rather the fundamental trans-formation of society towards one where society becomes something that is outside and objective...". A fourth sociologist, whose orientation to his research f i t s i n with my definition of the Type I orientation, described his research interests as having to do with: "...the study of ongoing social interaction in the the form of social occasions...with particular emphasis on collecting specimens of what I c a l l 'timing and spacing acts * which are actions per-formed by participants which could be seen to generate temporal and spatial contexts for that interaction...". These quotations from the transcripts of subjects who f i t into the first,constructed type i l l u s t r a t e a chief concern with the nomethetic tendency i n sociology. These sociologists are concerned with relatively timeless questions, with the aim of making general-izations beyond their data. The distinction i n basic orientation to one's research interest cuts across substantive area interests and sub-groups among sociologists. Sociologists of either research orientation may study the same substantive area, but the questions they ask w i l l d i f f e r i n accordance with their dissimilar long-range objectives. The sub-stantive area interests of subjects appears in Appendix I. ;. Subjects with a Type II research orientation appeared relatively less concerned with the generalizations that can be extrapolated from their data; this generalizing concern is secondary to an interest in the often unique features of the object of research i t s e l f . The subject with a Type II research orientation speaks often of the desire to learn about that which he or she is studying; the subject does not usually make statements about precise hypotheses he or she is undertaking, a study to prove or disprove. One subject said: "... I really want to find out what these people think are the most important problems for themselves rather than me presupposing that there are certain questions that I have which are important and they w i l l just • provide me with the data on that...". He spoke of an earlier research experience he disliked where: "... I was plucking people out to ask them lots of questions on variables which I really did not determine were relevant to those people, you know, in their own terms...questions which I derived from previous research on the subject...on the one hand you're asking questions for a particular problem you want to solve, yet on the other hand, you're seeing the society operating i n ways that appear to you not to be relevant to the kinds of questions you're asking...". The subject with a Type II research orientation often studies an intentional and naturally occuring group, country, or institution. The subject with a Type I research orientation, in contrast, often studies a r t i f i c i a l or accidental groupings. This distinction does not always hold because sociologists of certain sub-disciplines such as ethnomethodology, while using naturally occuring groupings as sources of data, most often would be cl a s s i f i e d as Type I sociologists owing to their primary concern with theoretical questions. Another subject with a Type II research orientation expressed an interest in the problem of unemployment: "...there are three projects I work on...one i s the adaptation of Chinese migrants to (Western) soci e t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Vancouver... the other one i s to write an epic h i s t o r y of the Chinese i n Canada and the third...some work on South (China) communes...". Another Type II subject r e l a t e d an e a r l i e r research i n t e r e s t i n the following way: "...my f i r s t research interest...was the e f f e c t of unemployment i n family l i f e among the Mexican-Americans. The Mexican-Americans because...I speak Spanish, there i s a large number of Mexican-Americans i n California...(and) nobody ' was r e a l l y much concerned with the Mexican-Americans, i n the s o c i a l sciences." The subject went on to say: "...when I-was i n C a l i f o r n i a . . . 1 became int e r e s t e d i n these people. I had the advantage of being able to communicate with them both i n Spanish and English and at that time I was somehow in t e r e s t e d i n family. And I thought i t would probably be i n t e r e s t i n g to see...the e f f e c t s of unemployment on family l i f e . Then I became les s i n t e r e s t e d i n the family as a substantive area and I s t i l l was i n t e r e s t e d i n unemployment and the Mexican-Americans and I decided to...concentrate on employment and one aspect which I thought i s s i g n i f i c a n t to look at i s how they go about look-ing f o r a job." This l a s t quotation i l l u s t r a t e s the Type II sociologist,' s p r i n c i p l e i n t e r e s t i n the substance of that which he for she i s studying i n i t s concrete "timely" occurrence. The Type II o r i e n t a t i o n to research comes close to an o r i e n t a t i o n described by E. C. Hughes, i n a more extreme form, as motivating s o c i o l o g i s t s : "...who would bind a l l study of human a f f a i r s to time and place and, consequently, to sub-stance and i n s t i t u t i o n , which are the most obvious h i s t o r i c a l aspects of human conduct." (1959: 408) D. Attributes Associated with Each Constructed Type As noted earlier in the chapter, additional attributes characteristically associated with subjects f a l l i n g into groupings of one or the other research orientation, were found. The following l i s t indicates tendencies found to be particularly strong i n each of the constructed types: Type 1 1. Consensus on the maturation of sociology as a science. With this notion, emphasis was placed on the nec-• essity of cumulative refinement of theoretical pers-pectives and methodological techniques. 2. L i t t l e mention of the other social sciences as ' sources of valuable insight and co-operative research. > 3. Subject's undergraduate studies often involve a concentration in abstract studies, e.g. philosophy, physics or mathematics. 4. Current studies are usually focussed on the micro level or aimed at the development of middle-range theory. 1. Infrequent mention of sociology as a science. Some currency given to the contention that sociology has points in common with the Humanities. 2. Quite favourable attitude toward the insights of anthropologists and other social scientists. Con-viction of the benefit, sometimes the necessity, of interdisciplinary scholarship. 3. Subject's undergraduate studies concentrate most often i n the social sciences. 4. ' Current studies may be conducted at the institutional or macro level, but micro studies are also carried out. The distinctions drawn thus far between types of research orientation and associated attributes pa r a l l e l Horowitz's and 13. Brown's typologies at a number of points. The Type I research orient-ation suggests a close relationship with Horowitz's professionalism type in i t s emphasis on the development of sociology as a mature science. Horowitz describes the professionalism type as having a strong emphasis on testability and r e l i a b i l i t y and as having been influenced by po s i t i v i s t philosophy. The professionalism type values associations with other professions and areas with a high degree of systemization and quantification such as physics and mathematics. Horowitz argues that sociologists characterized by this orientation operate within a theory, of exclusivity where professional associations are highly valued and approval from other working sociologists i s emphasized. (1968: 208-210) The Type II research orientation parallels Horowitz's occupationalism type in their common acceptance of the benefit to be derived from the other social sciences. The occupationalism type seeks out associations with other fields of low systemization such as history, biography and f i c t i o n . Sociologists of the occupationalism type operate within a theory of inclusivity - attachments with prof-essional associations are valued less highly than attachments with associations based on the policy u t i l i z a t i o n of the sociologist's efforts. (Horowitz, 1968: 208-210) Relating this discussion of types of research orientations to the original problem of this thesis raised additional questions to be investigated. The next chapter presents factors subjects identified as influences on their current research and relates these influences to subjects' research orientations. If subjects vary i n their orientation toward their research interests and their attitudes toward the goals of the discipline, do they also identify dissimilar kinds of i n f l u -ences when accounting for the development of those research interests? CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCES ON CURRENT RESEARCH This chapter presents the findings generated by responses to questions asking the subjects to account for how they came to be carrying out their present research. From the variety of items mentioned by subjects twelve categories of influences were constructed. Discussion of these categories comprises the f i r s t section of this chapter. Frequencies of mention of each category were computed and agreement scores were calculated for each pair of categories to determine which categories were mentioned together by subjects. Subjects were also compared to determine which subjects mentioned the same sorts of influences. The comparisons of relationships between categories and relationships between subjects are presented graphically in the Smallest Space configurations of the relationships i n the second portion of the chapter. The chapter w i l l conclude with a discussion of the extent to which subjects of Type I and Type II research orientations vary i n the sorts of influences they identify i n accounting for their own research interests. A. Categories of Influence Mentioned Subjects responded to the open-ended question of how they came to be carrying out their current research on four separate dimensions: 1. how they came to be involved in their present specific research project 2. how they became involved in the substantive area of their research, and often, earlier research 3. how they came to be using their present theoretical perspective 4. how they came to be using their present research methods Not a l l subjects addressed themselves to a l l four dimensions of this question? for purposes of analysis a l l four dimensions were treated together. As can be imagined, many subjects mentioned a great many factors when accounting for their present research concerns. The f i r s t thing I did in treating the responses was to extract each mentioned influence from the transcripts of each subject. From these items a smaller number of categories were constructed under which a l l the specific responses could be subsumed. Drawing on Zeisel's accounting scheme, in which categories were differentiated according to references to self, object, and social setting (1968: 158), an accounting scheme was developed which appears i n Appendix E. The twelve categories and the variety of responses to which each category refers were: \ Category 1. Background: Personality and attitudes or world view. In this category personal predispositions were included as well as leisure and recreation interests, p o l i t i c a l attitudes, and previous job experiences. Non-academic personal experiences dis-tinguish this category. Category 2. Background: Georgraphical origins or ethnicity of subject. Geographical origins or ethnicity of spouse. This category includes ascribed non-academic factors. Category 3. World events: Includes mention of specific issues and world leaders. Category 4. The research area i t s e l f : References to the i n t r i n s i c qualities of interest i n the topic being studied. Present department: References made to the department in which the sociologist i s presently employed. Includes references to i t s ethos and expectations. Experiences i n the department and colleagues within the department are included in this category. Graduate institution: Particular courses or teachers in the subject's graduate school. References made to the theoretical or methodological orientation of the graduate school are included. Substantive concen-tration of the school, events at and ethos of the school occupy this category. Intellectual development: References made to the evolution of ideas and problems from earlier concerns. References to personal dissatisfaction with an old approach and search for a new approach. Includes devel-opment of ideas within' the discipline. Undergraduate institution: Includes mention of courses or teachers at subject's under-graduate institution. Practicing sociology: References made to the influence of doing f i e l d work, teaching a particular course or carrying on research required by a past research job are included in this category. Category 10. Other sociologists outside the present department or graduate or undergraduate institutions of the subject. Includes sociologists as influences where contact has been indirect and contacts with sociol-ogists at institutions where the subject was previously employed. Category 11. Availability of funds and/or data: References made to effects of the lack or presence of funds and/or data. Category 12. Non-sociologists: References made to persons outside the discipline are included i n this category. Contact may be direct or indirect. . After constructing the categories I saw that they could be dichotomized according to their relationship to the discipline of sociology. That i s , about half the categories referred to items that were part of Category 5. Category 6 . Category 7. Category 8. Category 9. the socialization process of taking on the role of sociologist and about half were outside the disciplinary domain. . The table on the following page illustrates the categories according to whether they are internal or external to the discipline. It should be noted that the table does not include "Availability of funds/and or data" (Category 11) because the category is so general as to preclude classification as "internal" or "external" to the discipline. In some cases, a v a i l a b i l i t y of funds may be controlled by the discipline, but access to data may be determined by events over which the discip-line has no control. Considering a l l items mentioned by the subjects, categories internal to the discipline were mentioned 54% of the time and categories external to the discipline were mentioned 38% of the time. References made to the ava i l a b i l i t y of funds and/or data comprised 8% of the items mentioned. A table indicating the frequency with which each category was mentioned follows on page 20. Because nearly a l l subjects mentioned different combinations of categories when accounting for the influences on their.research, I have attempted to determine which combinations of influences were most frequently mentioned. B. Smallest Space Analysis The data showing categories mentioned by each subject appears as Appendix F. Appendix G gives the derived matrix indicating the number of subjects mentioning categories taken in pairs. Table IV shows the matrix of agreement scores giving the percentage of total subjects who mentioned any two categories together. TABLE II CATEGORIES OF INFLUENCE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE DISCIPLINE Internal to the D i s c i p l i n e External to the D i s c i p l i n e Category 5: , Present Department Category 6: Graduate I n s t i t u t i o n Category 7: I n t e l l e c t u a l Development Category 8: Undergraduate I n s t i t u t i o n Category 9: P r a c t i c i n g Sociology Category 10: Outside S o c i o l o g i s t s Category 1: Background: personality and non-academic exper-iences Category 2: Background: geographical o r i g i n s , e t h n i c i t y Category 3: World Events Category. 4: The research area i t s e l f Category 12: Non-Sociologists TABLE III FREQUENCY OF INFLUENCES BY CATEGORY Influences Times Mentioned Internal to the Discipline Graduate Institution 15 Intellectual Development 15 Practicing Sociology 14 Present Department 8 Undergraduate Institution 7 Outside Sociologists 5 TOTAL 64 (54%) External to the Discipline The Research Area Itself 14 Background: Personality and non-academic experience 13 Background: Geographical origins and ethnicity 6 World Events 6 Non-Sociologists 5 TOTAL 44 (38%) Other Availability of funds and/or data 9 (8%) TOTAL INFLUENCES MENTIONED 117 (100%) TABLE IV PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SUBJECTS WHO MENTIONED ANY TWO CATEGORIES 3 4 S 5 c o 6 M ft 7 u w s 9 u 10 11 12 CATEGORY (per cent) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 3 3 18 12 9 9 15 11 5 3 15 15 9 0 11 0 6 3 3 6 23 3 9 3 11 11 14 5 9 23 14 17 17 9 0 0 0 0 0 5 14 0 3 11 5 3 14 5 14 3 3 5 3 3 5 5 3 3 5 5 3 0 3 3 (N = 34) From Table IV i t can be seen that there are no high agreement scores. The highest agreement involves categories 4 and 9: 23% of a l l subjects (34) mentioned both p r a c t i c i n g sociology and the research area of t h e i r studies i n t h e i r responses to the question. To c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between c e r t a i n categories, however, i t i s necessary to focus on which categories co-occur i n another way: i n cases where category x i s mentioned, how frequently i s category y also mentioned? And the r e c i p r o c a l : i n cases where category y i s mentioned, how frequently i s category x also mentioned? I t w i l l be noted that such r e l a t i o n s h i p s are not symmetrical. The assymetric matrix that follows on the next page shows the percentages of t o t a l subjects mentioning category x who a l s o mentioned category y. From t h i s matrix more i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s can be seen. For example, a l l subjects who mentioned category 10 (5 s u b j e c t s ) , also mentioned category 7. That i s , everyone who mentioned s o c i o l o g i s t s outside t h e i r graduate and undergraduate i n s t i t u t i o n s and present department as i n f l u e n t i a l a lso made reference to t h e i r own i n t e l l e c t u a l development. However, of the 15 subjects who mentioned category 7, only a t h i r d mentioned category 10. That i s , while a l l subjects mentioning outside s o c i o l o g i s t s also mentioned t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l development, only a t h i r d of those mentioning i n t e l l e c t u a l develop-ment mentioned outside s o c i o l o g i s t s . Also, 67% of the subjects who r e f e r r e d to category 2 (geographical o r i g i n s or e t h n i c i t y of vsubject or spouse) a l s o r e f e r r e d to the i n t r i n s i c q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r research area. Of the larger number r e f e r r i n g to the i n t r i n s i c q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r research t o p i c , however, only 29% mentioned the geographical o r i g i n s or e t h n i c i t y of themselves or t h e i r spouse. 23. TABLE V PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SUBJECTS MENTIONING CATEGORY X WHO ALSO MENTION CATEGORY Y Base Figures (N = 13) (N = 6) (N = 6) (N = 14) (N = 8) (N = 15) (N = 15) (N = 7) (N = 14) (N = 5) (N = 9) (N = 5) •P C CD O U CD P4 >} < CATEGORY Y (per cent) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 23 8 46 23 38 31 15 38 0 31 8 2 - 5 0 17 67 17 50 0 16 33 0 33 16 3 33 33 50 83 0 33 16 50 0 16 33 4 44 29 21 36 29 21 21 57 0 35 14 5 38 13 63 63 13 25 13 63 0 25 13 6 33 20 0 27 7 53 27 40 13 33 7 7 26 0 13 20 13 53 27 40 33 7 13 8 29 14 14 43 14 57 57 43 0 14 29 9 36 14 21 57 36 44 44 21 7 14 7 10 0 0 0 0 .0 40 100 0 20 0 20 11 44 22 11 56 22 56 11 11. 22 0 11 12 20 20 40 40 20 20 40 40 20 20 20 24. Tables IV and V were prepared for Smallest Space Analysis (S.S.A.) to make the relationships more readily vi s i b l e . Milton Bloombaum describes the objective of the Smallest Space Analysis solution i n the following way: "...The basic question addressed by S.S.A. i s 'What is the smallest space in which a body of data may be adequately represented?' The notion of 'smallest space' refers to the fewest number of dimensions, e.g., one dimension may be represented geometrically by a line, two by a square, and three by a cube... The adjective 'adequately' refers to how well these data can be reconstructed from a configuration of • points which is a solution, and the idea of 'representation' is to be approached in geometric terms where vi s u a l i z a b i l i t y i s the key to com-prehending a set of structured interrelationships." (1970: 409) The configurations of points on the following three pages il l u s t r a t e S.S.A. solution to the data imputs of Tables IV and V. Each number represents the point i n space of each category. For example, the circl e d numbers 4 and 9 in the f i r s t S.S.A. solution represent the two categories showing strongest agreement. Laumann and Guttman have described the purpose of Smallest Space Analysis as seeking: "...to provide a graphic portrayal of the data matrix which w i l l be simple, yet f a i t h f u l i n the sense of monotonicity." (1966: 171) . The c r i t e r i a of monotonicity are met when the S.S.A. solution shows the distance (A,B) less than the distance (A,C) whenever the agreement of (A,B) i s greater than the agreement (A,C). In the Smallest Space Solution to Table IV, an acceptable coefficient of alienation i n two dimensions is met at 0.131. The coefficient of alienation measures the degree to which the S.S.A. solution differs from the matrix input.^ The assymetrical derived FIGURE I o 25. to S.S.A. SOLUTION TO TABLE V Column Solution. 6 8 12 matrix of Table V provides two S.S.A. solutions - a row solution and a column solution. The coefficient of alienation for the row solution in two dimensions i s 0.086. The coefficient of alienation in the column solution for two dimensions i s 0.148. Having established categories that cluster together, i.e., those that frequently co-occur in the responses of the subjects, we w i l l look now at relationships among subjects based on the categories they mentioned. • A derived matrix was computed showing the percentage of the total number of categories (12) that subjects i and j mentioned in common. The derived matrix follows on the next page as Table VI. Highest agreement i s between subjects 28 and 2 - of the total number of categories possible, 42% of the categories this pair of subjects mentioned were the same categories. The raw matrix from which the derived matrix was computed appears in the appendix. As mentioned earlier, subjects varied in the number of categories mentioned from a low of 2 to a high of 7 different categories. The data matrix that appears on page 31 was constructed to show the percentage of categories mentioned by subject i that were also mentioned by subject j . This table i s assymetrical because of the variable number of categories mentioned by subjects. This derived matrix i s based on the same raw data matrix as Table VI was based on; the raw matrix i s contained in Appendix H. From this table i t can be seen that the responses of many subjects were closely related. For example, subject number 27 mentioned every category that subject number 1 mentioned, but subject 1 mentioned only 60% of the total number of categories mentioned by subject 27. Two pairs of subjects were perfectly reciprocal i n their TABLE VI 29-30. r.'.'itCENTAGES OF TOTAL CATEGORIES MENTIONED IN COMMON BY ANY TWO SUBJECTS 1 2 3 1 2 8 3 8 17 4 8 0 0 5 0 8 0 6 17 8 8 7 0 17 8 8 0 8 0 9 8 17 17 10 0 17 8 11 8 25 17 12 8 17 17 13 0 8 0 cem 14 17 17 17 u S 15 0 8 0 3* 16 0 17 8 w E-u 17 8 17 8 u 3 18 17 0 8 o w 19 17 33 17 20 0 8 0 21 17 8 0 22 17 8 0 23 8 17 8 24 0 8 0 25 8 8 8 26 0 8 0 27 25 17 17 28 8 42 17 29 17 8 8 30 0 8 0 31 17 8 8 32 8 8 17 33 8 8 8 34 17 25 17 (N = 12) 4 5 6 7 SUBJECTS (per cent) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 8 0 17 17 0 0 0 8 8 8 17 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 17 8 8 8 0 8 0 0 8 8 0 17 8 8 8 8 17 17 8 8 17 17 8 0 8 0 0 8 17 17 17 8 8 8 17 0 8 0 0 17 0 8 8 0 8 17 8 8 0 8 8 17 8 8 8 17 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 8 0 17 17 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 25 17 8 8 8 0 17 17 8 17 0 25 8 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 17 17 0 17 17 25 8 8 17 17 25 25 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 17 8 17 0 0 8 25 8 17 0 25 0 17 17 17 0 0 17 0 0 8 8 0 0 17 17 0 8 0 0 17 17 0 0 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 17 17 0 17 0 17 25 8 17 0 8 17 0 0 0 0 17 8 0 0 17 8 0 0 17 8 17 0 8 0 17 17 8 17 0 8 17 17 8 0 17 8 0 17 0 0 17 8 17 17 0 17 0 17 8 0 0 17 0 8 8 25 8 0 8 17 17 25 0 17 25 17 8 17 8 8 17 8 17 17 25 17 8 17 8 17 25 0 33 8 8 8 17 8 8 8 17 17 0 0 17 0 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 17 8 0 17 8 8 8 8 17 17 8 8 0 8 8 8 17 0 8 17 8 17 0 8 8 8 0 0 0 17 8 0 0 17 17 0 0 25 17 0 8 8 0 8 8 17 8 17 8 8 8 0 0 25 8 .8 0 17 8 17 8 8 8 17 8 17 17 17 25 8 8 17 0 8 25 0 17 0 17 25 8 8 0 8 17 17 8 17 8 17 8 8 8 8 0 0 25 17 8 0 25 17 8 8 8 0 8 8 17 8 17 17 8 17 25 2,5 17 0 17 25 8 25 0 17 17 8 17 8 8 8 17 8 8 8 17 25 17 8 17 17 17 T A B L E V I I I C O M P A R I S O N R E S P O N D E N T - T O - R E S P O N D E N T : P E R C E N T A G E O F I T E M S C H O S E N B Y R E S P O N D E N T i T H A T W E R E A L S O C H O S E N B Y R E S P O N D E N T j ( O F x N U M B E R O F I T E M S C H O S E N B Y i , W H A T P E R C E N T A G E O F x C H O S E N B Y j )  S U B J E C T i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 .33 .33 .33 .00 .67 .00 .00 .33 .00 .33 .33 .00 .67 .00 .00 .33 .67 .67 .00 .67 .67 .33 .00 .33 .00 1.0 .33 .67 .00 .67 .33 .33 .67 2 .20 .40 .00 .20 .20 .40 .20 .40 .40 .60 .40 .20 .40 .10 .40 .40 .00 .80 .20 .20 .20 .40 .20 .20 .20 .40 1.0 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .60 3 .33 .67 .00 .00 .33 .33 .00 .67 .33 .67 .67 .00 .67 .00 .33 .33 .33 .67 .00 .00 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .67 .67 .33 .00 .33 .67 .33 .67 4 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 .50 .50 .00 .50 1.0 .50 .50 1.0 .50 1.0 .00 .00 .50 1.0 .50 .50 .00 5 .00 .50 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 1.0 .50 . 0 0 .00 1.0 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 1.0 .50 1.0 .50 .50 .00 1.0 1.0 .50 1.0 .50 6 .50 .25 .25 .00 .00 .25 .00 .50 .00 .25 .25 .00 ^50 .25 .25 .50 .25 .50 .00 .50 .50 .25 .00 .00 .00 .50 .25 .50 .00 .25 .50 .25 .50 7 .00 .50 .25 .00 .25 .25 .50 .00 .00 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .75 .25 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .25 .50 .25 .50 .00 .50 .00 .25 .25 .25 .25 .50 8 .00 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 1.0 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 . 0 0 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 1.0 .00 .00 .00 1.0 .00 1.0 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 . 5 0 .50 9 .25 .50 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .50 .25 .25 .00 .25 .25 .00 .25 .25 .50 .00 .25 .25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 .25 .00 .25 .50 .25 . 2 5 / 10 :oo 1.0 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 0 0 1.0 .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 1.0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 1.0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 11 .33 1.0 .67 .00 .00 .33 .33 .00 .33 .33 .33 .00 .67 .00 .33 .67 .00 1.0 .00 .33 .33 .67 .00 .33 .00 .67 1.0 .33 .00 .00 .33 . 0 0 .67 12 .25 .50 .50 .25 .50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .00 .25 .25 .50 .00 .75 .50 .25 .25 .25 .00 .25 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .50 .25 .50 .75 .75 .75 .75 13 .00 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 . 0 0 .00 1.0 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 1.0 .50 .00 1.0 .50 14 .67 .67 .67 .00 .00 .67 .33 .00 .33 .00 .67 .67 .00 .00 .33 .67 .33 .67 .00 .33 .33 .67 .00 .33 .00 .67 .67 .67 .00 .33 .67 .33 1.0 ^ 15 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 1.0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .40 .20 .20 .40 .20 .60 .20 .00 .00 .20 . 6 0 .40 . 2 0 .20 .60 .00 .60 .20 .00 .20 .40 .40 .40 .40 .20 .40 .20 .60 .40 .40 .60 .40 u u 17 .20 .40 .20 .20 .20 .40 .20 .00 .20 .00 .40 . 4 0 .20 .40 .00 .60 .00 .60 .00 .40 .60 .60 .20 .40 .20 .40 .60 .40 .40 .20 .60 .40 .40 o o 18 in 1.0 .00 .50 .50 .00 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 1.0 .00 .50 .00 1.0 .50 .50 .50 19 .29 .57 .29 .14 .00 . 2 9 .29 .00 .29 .29 .43 .14 .14 . 28 .28 .42 .42 .14 .00 .28 .28 . 28 .00 .28 .00 .42 .57 .28 .14 .14 .14 .14 .28 20 .00 .50 .00 .00 .50 .00 1.0 1.0 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 . 0 0 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.0 .00 1.0 .00 .50 .00 .50 .50 .00 .50 .50 21 .67 .33 .00 .33 .00 .67 .00 .00 .33 .00 .33 .00 .00 .33 .00 .00 .67 .33 .67 .00 1.0 .33 .00 .33 .00 .67 .33 .33 .00 .33 .33 . 0 0 .33 22 .50 .25 .00 .50 .25 .50 .00 .00 .25 .00 .25 .25 .00 .25 .00 .25 .75 .25 .50 .00 .75 .50 .25 .50 .25 .75 .25 .25 .25 .50 .50 .25 .25 23 .33 .67 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .00 .00 .00 .67 .67 .00 .67 .00 .67 1.0 .00 .67 .00 .33 .67 .33 .67 .33 .67 .67 .33 .33 .33 . 6 7 • 33 .67 24 .00 .33 .00 .33 .67 .00 .67 .67 .00 .00 .00 .67 .33 .00 .00 .67 .33 .00 .00 .67 .00 .33 .33 .33 1.0 .33 .33 .00 .67 .67 .33 .67 .33 25 .33 .33 .33 .67 .33 .00 .33 .00 .00 .00 .33 .67 .00 .33 .00 .67 .67 .33 .67 .00 .33 .67 .67 .33 .33 .67 .33 .00 .33 .67 .67 .33 .3*3 26 .00 .33 .00 .33 .67 .00 .67 .67 .00 .00 .00 .67 .33 . 0 0 .00 .67 .33 .00 .00 .67 .00 .33 .33 1.0 .33 .33 .33 .00 .67 .67 .33 .67 .33 27 .60 .40 .40 .40 .20 .40 .00 .00 .40 .20 .40 .40 .00 .40 .00 .20 .40 .40 .40 .00 .40 .60 .40 .20 .40 .20 .40 .40 .20 .60 . 4 0 .40 .40 28 .20 1.0 .40 .00 .20 .20 .40 .20 .40 .40 .60 . 4 0 .20 . 4 0 .20 .40 .60 .00 .80 .20 .20 .20 .40 .20 .20 .20 .40 .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .60 29 .67 .33 .33 .00 .00 .67 .00 .00 .33 .00 .33 .33 .33 .67 .00 .33 .67 .33 .67 .00 .33 .33 .33 .00 .00 .00 .67 .33 .33 .33 .33 .67 .67 30 .00 .33 .00 .33 .67 .00 .33 .33 .00 .00 .00 . 6 7 .67 . 0 0 .00 1.0 .67 .00 .33 .33 .00 .33 .33 .67 .33 .67 .33 .33 .33 .67 .33 1.0 .33 31 .50 .25 .25 .50 .50 .25 .25 .25 .25 .00 .00 .75 .25 .25 .00 .50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .50 .25 .50 .50 .50 .75 .25 .25 .50 .25 .75 .50 32 .25 .25 .50 .25 .25 .50 .25 .00 .50 .00 .25 .75 .00 .50 .00 .50 .75 .25 .25 .00 .25 .50 .50 .25 .50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .25 .50 .50 33 .25 .25 .25 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .25 '.00 .00 .75 .50 .25 .00 .75 .50 .25 .25 .25 .00 .25 .25 .50 .25 .50 .50 .25 .50 .75 .75 .50 . 5 0 34 .50 .75 .50 .00 .25 .50 .50 .25 .25 .00 .50 .75 .25 .75 .00 .50 .50 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .50 .25 .25 .25 .50 .75 .50 .25 .50 .50 .50 32 responses: in one pair each subject mentioned the same 5 categories and no others; in the other pair, 2 subjects mentioned the same 3 categories and no others. The derived matrices of Tables VI and VII were prepared for Smallest Space Analysis solutions. The solutions to the data inputs appear on the next three pages. Each number in the S.S.A. solution represents the spatial relationship of each of the 34 sub-jects. The coefficient of alienation in the two dimensional S.S.A. solution to Table VI i s 0.084. Because the derived matrix of Table VII i s assymetrical, two solutions are given. The coefficient of alienation to the row solution, in two dimensions, i s 0.093. For the column solution, in two dimensions, the coefficient of alien-ation i s 0.155. C. The Relationship between Research Orientations and Mentioned Influences  In the last chapter I described a number of attributes that \ characterized each of two research orientations that I f e l t could be used to highlight tendencies among subjects i n this study. I con-cluded that subjects that d i f f e r in research orientation might also be expected to d i f f e r in the sorts of influences they would mention in accounting for the development of their own research interests. The notion that subjects of like research orientation mention similar influences seems to be borne out by the Smallest Space Analysis solutions Referring back to the two solutions to Table VII, v i r t u a l l y a l l subjects clustered within the lines drawn on the l e f t hand side of the column solution and the right hand side of the row solution tend toward the Type I research orientation. Subjects tending toward the Type II research orientation cluster at the opposite side of each page.2 2 6 2 4 S . S . A . S O L U T I O N T O T A B L E V I 2 5 1 6 2 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 17 2 8 2 * Type I Subject * T y p e I S u b j e c t s * T y p e I S u b j e c t Subjects with a Type I research orientation, that i s , with a primary concern in the theoretical and/or methodological questions to be settled by a particular collection of data, mentioned categories internal to the discipline of sociology more often than those with a Type II research orientation. Subjects with a Type II research orient-ation, those primarily concerned with the i n t r i n s i c qualities of the topic studied and less concerned with the theoretical and method-ological issues illustrated by their data, mentioned categories of influence from outside the discipline to a greater relative degree. Of the 18 subjects who tended toward the Type I orientation, only 24% of the categories mentioned were generated by factors external to the discipline. 57% of the categories mentioned by 16 subjects who tended toward the Type II orientation were generated by factors external to the discipline. The table on the following page compares influences mentioned by subjects classed in each research orientation. The most common influence mentioned by Type I subjects was personal intellectual development. The following passage gives a Type I subject's account of how he arrived at his present research: "...my formulations of the problems I'm interested in i s a function of having...(come) to the con-clusion about five years ago...of the necessity of formulating mathematical models to account for human behaviour... I came to that conclusion as a result of beginning to realize tha't most of the statements that we make in my discipline...(are) ambiguous...it's not clear what i s meant by most of the claims that are made...for example, i f you say "More of A, then the more of B," that's (an) extraordinarily ambiguous statement although we take i t to be a pretty precise statement...and I began to realize that i f the statement i s ambig-uous then i t becomes almost impossible to test i t because you don't know what i t means and therefore how can you deny i t , how can you gather TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS OF SUBJECTS WITH MENTIONED INFLUENCES ON THEIR RESEARCH (Figures given i n parentheses are percentages of total number of influences mentioned per research orientation) Research Orientation Categories of Influence Mentioned' Internal to the Discipline External to the Discipline Total Number of Influences Mentioned Type I Subjects 41 (76%) 13 (24%) 54 (100%) Type II Subjects 23 (45%) 31 (57%) 54 (100%) data that denies i t . And in fact (if you) say 'the more something, the more of something else', about the only thing that could defeat that statement would be the opposite, that i s , i f you get a diminution in the second variable or i f i t remains constant...". In contrast to the preceding quotation, subjects with a Type II research orientation most often made reference to the i n t r i n s i c qualities of their research area i t s e l f when giving their accounts. One Type II subject made the following statement: "...when I was about 12...there were Jehovah's Witnesses...where I was brought up...and I became interested i n them because they really are quite extraordinary people, they say 'millions now l i v i n g w i l l never die, religion is a snare and a racket'1 ... that was their slogan and I said to myself, 'well, these people are certainly religious from any way we look at i t . Why would they say a thing like that?'...I took that as a challenge to find out. Also I was very impressed with the way Jehovah's Witnesses worked i l l e g a l l y i n Germany and i n Russia and how they were persecuted. Yeah, the influences that brought me to my work are a l l personal rather than academic I would say...". D. Conclusion The S.S.A. solutions presented in this chapter show that subjects tending toward the Type I research orientation tended to cluster in one group according to their mentioned influences while subjects of the Type II orientation clustered in another distinct group. Comparing the two groups, Type I subjects more often mentioned influences internal to the discipline such as personal intellectual development, graduate and undergraduate institutions, their present department and experiences derived from "practicing sociology". Type II subjects more often mentioned influences external to the discipline such as their own personality, non-39. academic experiences, their research topic and relationships with people outside the discipline. These findings appear consistent with distinctions Horowitz (1968: 195-220) drew between the "professionalism" and "occupation-alism" types. Subjects identifying factors within the discipline as the source of most influences could be said to "operate within a theory of exclusivity" (Horowitz, 1968: 208). Similarly, subjects identifying factors outside the discipline as influential might be described as operating within "a theory of inclusivity" (Horowitz, 1968: 208), i n the sense that the boundary between "academic study" and the "outside world" is minimized. To the extent that differences do exist between the two types of subjects with regard to identified sources of influences, differences might also be expected to exist in certain kinds of behaviour that may affect subjects' research efforts. Do differences exist as to the degree of involvement in professional associations? Do these two groups d i f f e r in their sources of intellectual insight? And, with reference to the development of Canadian research, do these types d i f f e r in the degree to which they actively carry out research i n this country? These questions w i l l be investigated in the following chapter. FOOTNOTES ^ An acceptable coefficient of alienation i s .15 or less. When Smallest Space Analysis is performed on symmetrical matrices (S.S.A.I), the following formula i s used to calculate the co-eff i c i e n t of alienation: 1. i f d „ = original distance between point i and point j i f d*. = the distance between points i and j i n the 1 3 f i n a l solution '» 2 2. then Kruskal's Stress is <J> = EE (d..-d*.) i j J-3 2?Ed I D 13 3. and coefficient of alienation = /l-(l-<|>) (Lingoes, 1970) \ 2 It should be noted here that the Smallest Space Analysis solutions in Figures I-IV have been included primarily to present graphically data presented i n Tables IV through VI. In Figures V and VI, the lines drawn round clusters of subjects show an apparent coincidence between particular research orientations and influences mentioned. In retrospect, the bounderies drawn should be regarded as somewhat problematic, pending further analysis based on traditional cluster analytic procedures. CHAPTER IV DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBJECTS OF EACH RESEARCH ORIENTATION A. Professional A f f i l i a t i o n s In the last chapter i t was found that subjects >v • differentiated according to research orientation differed with respect to the influences they mentioned as important determinants of their current research interests. In this chapter subjects w i l l be compared to see to what extent differences pertain i n their professional a f f i l i a t i o n s . In chapter II I argued for the apparent agreement between the Type I research orientation and Horowitz's "profession-alism" type, and the coincidence between the Type II research orient-ation and Horowitz's "occupationalism" type. Given these distinctions, one would expect a higher incidence of involvement i n professional associations among Type I subjects. I was unable to obtain information on professional association memberships from 2 subjects i n the study, but did obtain complete information from the other 32. Among the Type I subjects, the average number of memberships held per person was 2.88. Among Type II subjects, the average number of memberships was slightly higher, at 3.20 per person. No important differences appeared between Type I and Type II subjects i n terms of the number of professional,affiliations members of each group held. Associations were compared to see the countries in which they were primarily located. About one-third of a l l member-ship a f f i l i a t i o n s by both groups were with associations centred in Canada, more than half of the a f f i l i a t i o n s were with associations centred i n the United States, and about one-tenth were with assoc-iations outside Canada and the United States. The break-down appears in the table on the following page. Of the 32 subjects, 23 belonged to the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association. The American Sociological Association drew the highest rate of participation; 25 subjects were members. While nearly a l l subjects in the study held membership in one or more professional associations, the relative degree of activity, of subjects i n associations varied a great deal. Besides asking which professional groups subjects belonged to, I asked the respondents which associations, i f any, they were active i n . I gathered information on the specific committees subjects had sat on and o f f i c i a l positions they had assumed. I found that only a few subjects from each research orientation were actively involved in professional associations. Participation in meetings i n the form of paper presentations and chairing sessions was not considered evidence of "active" involvement. When o f f i c i a l positions held and committe work were considered, i t was found that 11 of 17 subjects (65%) with a Type I orientation were not active in any associations and 11 of 15 subjects (73%) with a Type II orientation were not active. I was unable to gather information on two subjects' professional activity. The table on page 43 is based on replies from the 6 Type I subjects and the 4 Type II subjects who were active. Although a l l subjects belonged to more associations centred i n the United States, active participation was most frequent i n the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association. From the following tables i t can be seen that association TABLE IX PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION AFFILIATIONS BY COUNTRY AND RESEARCH ORIENTATION COUNTRY TYPE I TYPE II TOTAL MEMBERSHIPS Canada 14 (29%) 16 (33%) 30 (31%) United States 30 (61%) 25 (52%) 55 (57%) Other 5 (10%) 7 (15%) 12 (12%) TOTAL MEMBERSHIPS 49 (100%) 48 (100%) 97 (100%) TABLE X PROFESSIONAL GROUP AFFILIATIONS OF MOST ACTIVE SUBJECTS ASSOCIATIONS TYPE I TYPE II TOTAL Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association 4 1 5 American Sociological Association 1 0 1 Pacific Sociological Association 3 1 4 Other American Associations 1 • 1 2 International Associations 0 2 .2 TOTAL 9* 5** 14 * Number of subjects = 6 ** Number of subjects = 4 membership does not vary substantially between Type I and Type II subjects. Type II subjects averaged a slightly higher number of memberships per person but Type I subjects were slightly more "active" i n their participation. The differences are negligible. B. Sources of Intellectual Influence In the discussion of constructed types in chapter two I noted that Type I and Type II subjects differed with respect to attitudes toward the other social sciences as sources of insight and influence. In the interviews I asked each subject "...which sociologists i f any, have been influential on your present research or thinking?" Many subjects claimed that i t was imperative that they mention social scientists outside the discipline i n order to answer the question accurately. The table on the following page summarizes the social scientists mentioned according to whether they were predominantly sociologists, evenly divided between sociologists and other social scientists, or predominantly social scientists outside the discipline of sociology. It can be seen from the table that sociologists with a Type II research orientation mentioned social scientists outside the discipline more often than Type I sociologists. 37% of the sociol-ogists with a Type II research orientation mentioned social scientists from disciplines other than sociology at least as often as those within the discipline. It must be remembered that these responses were made to a question that asked only which sociologists had been influ e n t i a l . 6% of the Type I subjects stated that at least half of the social scientists influential on their work were from outside the discipline. TABLE XI PERCENTAGES OF SUBJECTS OF EACH RESEARCH ORIENTATION MENTIONING SOCIOLOGISTS AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS* AS INFLUENTIAL RESEARCH ORIENTATION INFLUENCES MENTIONED TOTAL PREDOMINANTLY SOCIOLOGISTS HALF SOCIOLOGISTS AND HALF OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS* PREDOMINANTLY OTHER SOCIAL SCIENTISTS* Type I Type II 94% 63% 6% 31% 0% 6% 100% 100% Type I subjects = 18 Type II subjects = 16 * Historians have been grouped in this category, together with economists, p o l i t i c a l scientists, and anthropologists. The following statement by a subject with a Type II research orientation i s typical of statements made about the f e l t influence of the other social sciences. Doing f i e l d work, this subject became interested i n aspects of the society that have been traditionally regarded the province of anthropology. "...so (the) more...I got into the village material, I became more and more interested in the peasants and as a matter of fact i t meant that I became more interested in anthropology than i n sociology per se, you know. So I, i t was too late to change... but I really consider myself much more interested in anthropology than in sort of the orthodox sociology. And then I began to take courses i n anthropology..." Of the sociologists cited most frequently by a l l subjects as i n f l u e n t i a l , Type I subjects mentioned Karl Marx, Talcott Parsons and Emile Durkheim most frequently. Type II subjects mentioned Erving Goffman and Reinhard Bendix most frequently. The table on the following page shows the sociologists cited most frequently by a l l subjects. It should be noted that more than 70 other social scientists were cited as influences. This table might lead the reader to conclude that Type I subjects made more frequent reference to social scientists as sources of insight. This i s not the case. Type I subjects made mention of those sociologists who were most frequently cited by a l l subjects to a greater relative degree than Type II subjects. Type II subjects, as a group, appeared to draw on a wider range of influences. The more frequent mention made by Type I sociologists of their intellectual debt to classic theorists such as Durkheim, Weber, Parsons and Marx appears consistent with the strong theoretical interests of Type I subjects. TABLE XII SOCIOLOGISTS CITED MOST FREQUENTLY BY ALL SUBJECTS AS INFLUENTIAL FREQUENCY OF MENTION SOCIOLOGISTS CITED BY TYPE I SUBJECTS (N = 18) BY TYPE II SUBJECTS . (N = 16) TOTAL Erving Goffman 3 3 6 Karl Marx 4 • V 1 ••' • 5 Talcott Parsons 4 . • o 4 Harold Garfinkel 2 2 .  4 Emile Durkheim 4 . 0 4 Max Weber 3 1 4 Aaron Cicourel 3 1 4 William Robinson 2 1 3 C. Wright Mills 2 1 3 Kaspar Naegle 2 1 3 Reinhard Bendix 0 3 3 TOTAL 29 14 43 49. C. Geographical Locus of Research In stating the purpose of this study in chapter one i t was described as a preliminary step toward a more ambitious study. A larger study might investigate the effect of research orientations on actual work produced. An understanding of that process would allow greater prediction, planning and debate on the development of Canadian sociology. Although I gathered no data on the research produced in finished form by the subjects, I did obtain data with reference to the geographical locus of their current research. The table on the following page compares subjects of each orientation with regard to whether the majority of their current research is based on Canadian data or data from another country. In this table 6 subjects have been omitted. Two Type II subjects were not presently engaged in research. Four Type I subjects' research efforts are presently directed to methodological and/or theoretical concerns that are not dependent upon the collection of data. It can be seen from the table that the differences between subjects of each research orientation are not large. A slightly greater proportion of research inside Canada i s undertaken by Type I sociologists than by Type II sociologists. The differences are slightly deflated by the fact that i n the case of Type I subjects, two of the instances of current research outside Canada refer to cases in which the subjects are completing dissertation research. These subjects, as nearly a l l subjects i n the study\ undertook graduate studies outside Canada and carried out their research elsewhere although they made mention, in the interviews, of future plans for research based on Canadian data. TABLE XIII COMPARISON OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCUS OF RESEARCH OF SUBJECTS BY RESEARCH ORIENTATION GEOGRAPHICAL LOCUS OF CURRENT RESEARCH RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS TYPE I TYPE II Majority of research conducted i n Canada Majority of research conducted outside Canada 8 (57%) 6 (43%) 7 (50%) 7 (50%) TOTAL SUBJECTS 14 (100%) 14 (100%) It can also be seen that there i s a slightly greater tendency among Type II subjects to carry out research outside Canada than Type I subjects. Again, this difference w i l l increase slightly i f and when the two Type I subjects involved i n dissertation research take up studies using Canadian data-Although the differences are quite small, i t can be seen that Type I subjects display a slightly greater tendency to carry out empirical research based on Canadian data than Type II subjects. If interpretations are to be made as to the potential output of research based on Canadian data, however, i t must be remembered that 4 of the Type I subjects (22%) were carrying out research that had no grounding i n empirical data and 2 of the Type II subjects (13%) were not presently involved i n research projects. The f i n a l chapter w i l l relate differences we have found between Type I and Type II subjects to Horowitz's typology. Practical consequences for a developing Canadian sociology w i l l also be discussed. 52. FOOTNOTES Of the 34 subjects i n the study, 29 had completed, or were in the process of completing, f i n a l degrees i n the United States. 2 subjects took their doctoral studies in Canada. 1 subject completed the Ph.D. i n Germany. 2 subjects took their doctoral studies in England. CHAPTER V CONCLUSION This thesis has presented material bearing on the problem of determining what influences sociologists regarded as important determinants of their present research interests. It was found that subjects clustered i n two groups according to the sorts of influences they mentioned. Each group differed i n the relative importance they gave to factors such as personal intellectual development, one's graduate institution and personal experiences practicing sociology, non-academic experiences and the influence exerted by one's topic of study. It was found that the differentiation of subjects according to influences mentioned corresponded closely with a distinction based on subjects' research orientations. Further discussion of the data gathered focussed on differences and similarities between these two groups of sociologists. Data presented on distinctions between the two groups would lead one to expect that the kind of research produced by members of each group might d i f f e r i n important ways.. No material has been presented analysing work completed by these subjects, but distinctions found i n the data may help to formulate hypotheses to be tested i n an analysis of such finished work. Quotations from Type I subjects illustrated a primary concern with the formulation and testing of theoretical problems. One subject was motivated i n his research by the "quest for fundamentals"; his interests came from a systematic searching out of the "most significant theoretical problems". A concern with formulating universal laws i s consistent with the Type I subjects' agreement that sociology's development must be directed toward maturation as a science. Such a goal may lead Type I subjects to study carefully limited aspects of a particular phenomena and to be particularly concerned with the methodological problems posed by data. Type I subjects drew on the insights of other sociologists to a high degree; the perspectives of the other social sciences may exert a very limited influence on their work. Type II subjects' research may be dependent upon a much stronger grounding in time and place. Subjects quoted displayed a research orientation to whole problems of substance such as job hunt-in t , job creation, and the conditions of Chinese migrants in Vancouver. A tendency toward the idiographic would be expected i n the work of subjects who make very limited mention of sociology as a science. Type II subjects made frequent mention of perspectives drawn from the other social sciences, outside sociology; works of historians, anthropologists and economists may be expected to influence the research of subjects in this group. The tentative statements made above refer to the kind of research that may be produced by subjects of each research orientation. Such considerations would determine the kind of knowledge that i s created about society. The controversial issue raised recently i n Canadian sociology has been summarized in the slogan "Canadian Content". The slogan refers to the assertion that the discipline has not produced research documenting and analysing the unique set of hi s t o r i c a l , economic, social and p o l i t i c a l events that have shaped distinct peoples and cultures in Canada. The discontent among students is not new. E. C. Hughes described McGill University in the following way when he joined the faculty i n 1927: "...the sociological mood was not completely wanting in Canada, but sociologists were... not a group with strong vested interests. . In fact, the students of that time were inclined to complain that sociologists assigned them far too many books and articles concerning the States. Professor Dawson warned me, when I joined him in 1927, that my predecessor, also an American, had been given quite a runaround on this point. When , i t came up i n one of my classes, I countered by assigning large doses from English social and housing surveys. When the students complained of that, too, I suggested that we might a l l get together and create our own research on Canada." (1959: 401) The kinds of questions asked, and the method in which they are investigated w i l l , i t seems to me, determine the extent to which they provide us with information about the unique character of Canadian society and institutions. It i s for this reason that the research orientation of subjects has been stressed in this thesis. Minimally, of course, "Canadian content" depends on the analysis of Canadian data. In the last chapter data were presented showing that Type I and Type II subjects were involved in research projects using Canadian data to approximately the same degree. Several subjects from each research orientation mentioned their own gradual "switch over" to analyses of Canadian data as they finished up research projects begun in graduate school. Eighty-five per cent of the subjects in this study had attended graduate school i n the United States. Because only two subjects had undertaken doctoral studies in Canada the geographical locus of the research of a l l subjects might be viewed as the work of immigrants at varying stages of settlement in Canada. Although Type I and Type II subjects did not vary i n comparisons of the geographical locus of research, the tendency among Type II subjects to ground their research interests in time and place may make those subjects with strong area interests less l i k e l y to engage in future research using Canadian data. Type I subjects' primary commitment to the study of various theoretical problems may make the adoption of Canadian data less problematic. Data presented in the thesis also show that subjects of each research orientation do not d i f f e r markedly in their membership and active involvement in professional associations. This finding calls into question the emphasis Horowitz gave to the high value placed on professional associations by his "professionalism" type. In other respects, subjects of the Type I research orientation seem to pa r a l l e l the "professionalsim" orientation. Subjects of both orientations in this study, however, frequently remarked that they f e l t that involvement in professional associations provided only marginal stimulation to their intellectual interests. The discussion of research orientations in this thesis suggests a new set of considerations to examine when assertions are made as to important influences on sociologists' research". A recent letter in the C.S.A.A. Bulletin (October, 1972: 5) described the "... American view of sociology as timeless and placeless". The letter argued that the "careerism" suffusing "United States Academia generally" might be less prevalent i n Canada i f "...we...have sociologists and anthropologists who are Canadian, who are particip-ating i n Canadian society and therefore trying to make some contrib-ution to i t " . The data presented i n this thesis, however, would suggest that the view of sociology as "timeless and placeless" i s not uniquely American. Data was presented that indicates that subjects with a primary interest in the refinement of particular theoretical perspectives and methodological techniques might be expected to engage in "timeless, generalizing research" (Hughes, 1959: 401). Hughes saw the work of such subjects directed toward the development of "general abstract... knowledge and the methods of pursuing such knowledge". Subjects with this research orientation comprise my f i r s t constructed type. Other subjects in the study oriented themselves to the "timely, often descriptive" (Hughes, 1959: 401) aspects of the data they studied. The likelihood that subjects in this study would be of either research orientation cannot be predicted from knowledge of the country i n which they received their f i n a l degree. Of the 29 subjects taking their f i n a l degree in the United States, 13 were of the Type I research orientation and 16 were of the Type II research orientation. 2 subjects took their doctoral studies in Canada; their orientations were Type I. 3 subjects took their f i n a l degree in Europe; their orientations were Type II. The small number of subjects taking their f i n a l degree outside the United States prevents further generalization. It should also be stated that the research orientation of subjects cannot be predicted by an inspection of the citizenship of each subject. There were 7 Canadian citizens in the population; 27 subjects were citizens of other countries. 5 Canadian citizens were of the Type I research orientation; 2 Canadians tended toward the Type II orientation. Canadian citizens were more frequently of the Type I research orientation than "citizens of other countries". 13 non-Canadian citizens were of the Type I research orientation; 14 non-Canadians were closer to the Type II orientation. The table on the following page compares Canadian citizens and non-Canadian citizens according to the geographical locus of their current research. It can be seen that Canadian citizens and non-Canadian citizens do not dif f e r significantly i n the locus of their research. However, i t should be noted that 6 non-Canadian citizens are not included in this table. 2 of these are not presently engaged in research. The remaining 4 subjects are involved in research that excludes the collection and use of empirical data. If these 6 non-Canadian citizens were included i n the table, the proportions of non-Canadians engaged in research both inside and outside Canada would drop to 41% and 37% respectively. A wider sampling of the research interests of sociologists across Canada i s needed to ascertain the influence exerted by citizen-ship and the country in which graduate studies are undertaken. The findings generated by this study suggest that such an investigation should also include an examination of the research orientations of sociologists. TABLE XIV COMPARISON OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCUS OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH OF CANADIAN CITIZENS AND NON-CANADIAN CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP MAJORITY OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN CANADA MAJORITY OF RESEARCH CONDUCTED OUTSIDE CANADA TOTAL Canadian Not Canadian 4 (57%) 11 (53%) 3 (43%) 10 (48%) 7 (100%) 21 (100%) BIBLIOGRAPHY Bloombaum, Milton 1970 "Doing Smallest Space Analysis", Journal of Conflict  Resolution, XIV, 3: 409-416. Brief to the A.U.C.C. Committee on the Rationalization of University Research. 1972 A report prepared by a drafting committee appointed by the Executive of the Canadian Sociological and Anthropological Association, i n mimeo. Brown, Richard Lee 1969 "The Missouri College Sociologist: A Study i n Occupational Orientation". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia. Bucher, Rue, F r i t z , Charles and Quarantelli, E. L. 1956 "Tape Recorded Research: Some Field and Data Processing Problems", Public Opinion Quarterly, XX: 427-439. Caplow, Theodore and McGee, Reece 1965 The Academic Marketplace. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co. Craig, Kenneth Alan 1971 "Researcher-Subject Relations: An Exploration of the Sociologist as a Moral Actor". Unpublished Master's dissertation, University of Guelph. Daniels, Arlene Kaplan 1969 "The Low Caste Stranger in Social Research", i n Ethics, Pol i t i c s and Social Policy, ed. by Gideon Sjoberg. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 267-296. ' de Beauvoir, Simone 1952 The Second Sex. New York: Bantam Books. Hammond, P h i l l i p E. 1964 Sociologists at Work. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Horowitz, Irving L. 1968 Professing Sociology; Studies in the Life Style of  Social Science. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. Horowitz, Irving L. (ed.) 1969 Sociological Self-images: A Collective Portrait. Beverly H i l l s , California: Sage Publications. Hughes, Everett C. 1959 "The Dual Mandate of Social Science: Remarks on the Academic Division of Labour", Canadian Journal  of Economics and P o l i t i c a l Science, XXV, 4: 401-410. Laumann, Edward and Guttman, Louis 1966 "The Relative Associational Contiguity of Occupations i n an Urban Setting", American Sociological Review, XXXI, pp. 169-178. Lingoes, James 1970 "An I.B.M. 360/67 Program for Guttman-Lingoes Smallest Space Analysis - PI", Behavioural Science, XV, p.539. McKinney, John C. 1966 Constructive Typology and Social Theory. Appleton--\ Century Crofts, Division of Meredith Publishing Company. 1 Zeisel, Hans 1968 Say i t with Figures. Harper & Row. \ A P P E N D I X A A RESEARCH NOTE ON PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN THE STUDY The population of t h i s study was described b r i e f l y i n Chapter I I . Further d e t a i l s of the u n i v e r s i t i e s with which these subjects were a f f i l i a t e d may a i d the reader i n t e r e s t e d i n making comparative studies of other s o c i o l o g i s t s . The 34 s o c i o l o g i s t s were employed, at 3 u n i v e r s i t i e s concentrated i n a geographical area of some 50 miles. These 3 u n i v e r s i t i e s , together with a 4th smaller u n i v e r s i t y with no graduate programme located over 400 miles away, are the only u n i v e r s i t i e s i n the province. The overwhelming majority of B.A. students i n sociology i n the province, then, attend these 3 u n i v e r s i t i e s . V i r t u a l l y a l l graduate students of sociology attend the la r g e s t of the 3 u n i v e r s i t i e s . 11 regional colleges i n the province also o f f e r a l i m i t e d number of courses i n sociology. A. Entree and Acceptance Afte r determining the population and procedures to be followed i n the study, l e t t e r s were sent to 36 s o c i o l o g i s t s requesting an interview. A copy of the l e t t e r follows as Appendix B. S o c i o l o g i s t s were c a l l e d on the telephone a few days a f t e r r e c e i v i n g the l e t t e r , at which time an appointment was set up f o r an interview. 34 s o c i o l o g i s t s responded p o s i t i v e l y to the request f o r an interview. Subjects may have f e l t the same constraints to co-operate that Reece McGee and Theodore Caplow described among academic subjects they studied: "...as academic men, devoted...to the i d o l of research, they f i n d i t almost impossible to. disapprove of an academically respectable . study and w i l l f u l l y to withhold t h e i r co-operation." (1965: 28) The constraint to co-operate was possibly enhanced by my status as a graduate student. While transcribing the tape recordings of the interviews I was impressed by a recurrent theme, that of the student-teacher role replacing the interviewer-interviewee role. One of the sociologists who refused an interview remarked on his sense of conflict between his wish to avoid the interview because of his epistemological objections to the use of interviews as a method for gathering data and his conflicting concern that I would not get sufficient co-operation from other faculty members to fi n i s h my thesis. Other sociologists helpfully suggested books that would benefit my research and methods which would be useful i n analyzing the data. While being of considerable interest i n i t s e l f , the tendency to inter-act in student-teacher, rather than interviewer-interviewee, roles may have happily benefited the study. I feel that the information gathered had more depth of subjective feeling than i t might have had in a str i c t e r interviewer-interviewee role, a role less familiar to subjects and myself. The interviewing situation i n this study, then, appears relatively unusual for several reasons. F i r s t , the social worlds of the interviewer and interviewees corresponded in a general sense. Each member in the interviewing situation participates i n the same moral community in the sense expressed by the earlier quotation from Caplow and McGee's work. Second, the subordinate status of the interviewer as student and the superordinate status of the subject as professional sociologist represents an uncommon departure from most interviewing cases. The familiar patterns of behaviour of the student and teacher were often transferred to the interview experience. Third, I believe my special status as a woman affected the interview situation. Apart from notes on the intentional use of one sex or the other in studies of sexual behaviour, very l i t t l e attention is given the notion of the sex of the interviewer in the sociological literature.^ It appears clear to me that the sex of an interviewer would exert an influence that i t would be wise to recognize in any study. In cases where the interviewer is a man, I would expect that the influence of his sex would have less impact on the interviewing situation. De Beauvoir (1953: xvi) and other writers have commented on the perception by both men and women of the male member of the species as the "neutral" member. It is only when women enter into certain act i v i t i e s that sex becomes a matter of note. Of course, the influence of a woman actor w i l l be far greater in an activity where the presence of men i s preponderantly the norm. The prevalence of men in the sociological profession hardly needs further enumeration, but figures are presented on the following page with regard to the sexual composition of the subjects studied. Of the 34 interviewed, 4 were women, 30 were men. There were no women among the 7 sociologists employed at the 3 universities who were excluded from the population of this study. Numbers in parentheses refer to the total numbers employed at each of the 3 universities; those numbers include corrections for subjects not included in the study. By these figures, i t can be seen that just under 10% of the sociologists employed at these 3 universities were women. Without systematically investigating the effect of sex on the interview experience, I f e l t that my status as a woman tended to accentuate the di f f e r e n t i a l status of the student-teacher relationship described earlier. I f e l t that the woman, like the student, may appear less threatening to the subject than, for example, a male colleague carrying out such a study. TABLE XV COMPOSITION OF THREE DEPARTMENTS BY SEX ' WOMEN MEN University A 1 (1) 8 (8) University B 0 (0) 5 (8) University C 3 (3) 17 (21) TOTAL 4 (4) 30 (37) These are some influences I see as important par t i a l explan-ations for the high degree of co-operation among subjects as well as the willingness of most subjects to give concrete, extensive and affective responses to my questions. Studies carried out by other graduate students made note of the generous willingness among sociologists to spend long periods of time recalling information from their earlier research experiences (Craig: 1971; Brown: 1969). ' The major part of my interview schedule asked the single question, "Working backwards, how did you arrive at the research you are doing? That i s , what influenced your decision to carry out this kind of enquiry?" Such a question evidently gave subjects a chance to talk about themselves, to reflect on their biographical histories; most seemed to enjoy the opportunity. A close check on the elapsed time of each interview was not kept, but interviews generally varied from half an hour to well over two hours. B. The Interview Schedule The interview schedule was i n i t i a l l y constructed to tap, (1) the influences subjects would mention as important determinants of their present research, (2) their professional ties with other sociologists, and (3) their perceptions of their department and other departments of sociology. Following subjects' description of their research interests, they were asked the open-ended question mentioned above, v i z . , "Working backwards > how did you arrive at the research you are now doing..." This general question allowed each subject to determine the items of influence that he or she considered relevant with no cues from me as to relevant categories. After this question was answered at length specific questions were asked about influences that had not been touched upon by the subject as he answered the open-ended question. These questions dealt with graduate school training, occupational history, etc. These additional questions varied from subject to subject; my responses were adjusted to each subject so that I would ask only about topics that had gone unmentioned earlier. . C. In the Field; The Pre-test and the Interviews The interview schedule was used in a form substantially the same in a "pre-test" administered to 2 professors of anthropology, 3 graduate students i n sociology and 1 graduate student i n anthropology. I originally planned to pre-test the schedule with 6 anthropology professors, but after 2 interviews I found that I had not the requisite knowledge in anthropology to allow adequate follow-up to the questions. Interviews with the sociology graduate students proved more useful in refining the schedule, although their brief careers i n the profession did not allow me to anticipate the extended biographical histories I was to encounter later. The pre-test period allowed me to familiarize myself with the tape recording equipment and the special problems taping presents. Bucher, F r i t z , and Quarantelli have written of the special problems involved in the use of the tape-recorder in social research. They contend that: "...In the vast majority of cases, the tape-recorder does not become an issue to the respondent unless the interviewer makes i t one. Having gained admittance, the inter-viewer should begin setting up his machine just as i n other interviews he would pu l l out pencil and pad." (1956: 430) Three instances were encountered in which subjects asked that I refrain from using the tape recorder. A fourth subject objected at the beginning of the interview, but relented a few minutes after the interview began, as i t became apparent that my interest in writing down a l l the details was interfering with the flow of the interview. Although I did not want to encourage each subject to make a conscious decision as to whether or not he or she would be taped, I f e l t that plugging the cord i n without making any comment was taking a b i t for granted. I usually made the following remark as we were getting settled: "I've been taping the interviews. Where's your outlet?" Many of the subjects mentioned use of tape recorders i n their own research; they often suggested solutions to problems I might encounter. In comparing my notes made i n the 3 untaped interviews with the transcripts from the taped interviews, the superiority of the taping method appears overwhelming. Another positive feature of the use of tape-recorders bears mention: "...Recorded interviews terminate in a way slightly different from ordinary f i e l d interviews. Since tape-recorders have to be packed for carrying, there i s a time gap between the termination of the interview proper and the interviewer's leave taking..." (Bucher, F r i t z , and Quarantelli, 1956: 435). During this period of post-interview conversation subjects often asked me what I really was investigating. Several subjects expressed the feeling that while the interview had been in progress they had f e l t bound to refrain from asking detailed questions about the objectives of the study. Having f u l f i l l e d their obligations as an interviewee, and with the interview formally completed, they expected that my responses would be more candid. In 1 case a subject asked me about the "real" objective of the study, and I repeated the rationale I had used in my letter to a l l subjects. I said that I was interested i n "...the factors you see as most important i n influencing your decision to carry on this particular research". I added that I was interested in influences such as colleagues, money available, etc. At that point the subject said, "...oh, you asked the wrong questions". He then gave me a detailed account of a number of organizations and events that had acted to redefine his original research objectives. None of this material had been mentioned during the interview. Notes on such post and pre-interview remarks were typed and added to the formal transcripts as addenda. It was my intention on entering the f i e l d that I would make notes on my impressions of each interview immediately following each encounter. In practice this became an impossibility. I typically conducted 2 interviews a day, a period of approximately 3 hours of close attention. I found that I usually could not muster the energy to make the kinds of detailed notes that would be useful. D. Transcription and Analysis The process of transcribing each interview was an extremely time consuming job. I typed a l l transcriptions myself and found that I was usually unable to transcribe for more than 2 hours at a time without taking a break. I attempted to make verbatim transcripts of the interviews; the process was often made more exasperating by poor recording quality and an inattention on my part in the early days of interviewing to the problem posed by the nondiscriminatory nature of the tape-recorder. On the f i r s t tapes I picked up sounds from a f i r e station outside the office i n which I was recording. One interview was conducted at a subject's home while he was babysitting 2 noisy youngsters. The transcribing procedure averaged Ih hours per interview. The total time spent transcribing was approximately 250 hours. The 34 interviews produced 534 pages of transcript. While transcribing the interviews I made notes on thoughts occuring to me regarding the responses made by subjects. Puzzling information was noted and working hypotheses emerged as possible explanations. I made comparisons of each subject, as I was trans-cribing his or her interview, with the transcripts of other subjects. After each group of 8 to 10 interviews were transcribed I looked for similarities and differences among responses. This was the period of richest insights, the period in which I was most "immersed" in the raw data. I' cannot imagine the researcher gaining such familiarity with groups of interviews unless he or she undertakes the often grueling work of making the transcriptions. After completing the transcriptions I constructed a "summary sheet" to allow me to p u l l out what I f e l t were relevant facts, relationships and quotations. The summary sheet follows as Appendix D. Using the summary sheet I was able to compare responses to questions among the 34 subjects; such a " d i s t i l l a t i o n " seemed a practical necessity with over 500 pages of transcript. Details not included on the summary sheets were not lost because I found myself recalling additional things mentioned when I considered each subject's responses. E. Ethical Considerations In a study such as this, involving a small population, con-fi d e n t i a l i t y i s a special problem. I have tried to protect subjects in several ways. As stated earlier, I typed a l l of the transcriptions from the tape-recordings. My advisory committee has not heard any portion of the tape-recordings nor have they seen the transcripts themselves. One member of the committee offered helpful comments based on inspection of one pre-test transcript; the pre-test subject was informed of this. Quotations from the transcripts used in the thesis have only been included when I f e l t the identity of the speaker could not definitely be identified. FOOTNOTES One notable exception i s a fascinating account given by Arlene Kaplan Daniels (1969: 267-296) of her own research experience in an army base over a period of three years. She recounts modes of opposition taken by subjects resisting her research attempts as well as the means she used to accommodate their negative feelings. A P P E N D I X B LETTER TO SOCIOLOGISTS March, 1972. Professor X, Department of Sociology..., University A (B or C), Western Province, Canada. , Dear Professor X, I am a graduate student at University of British Columbia conducting a study on sociologists in this province. Through interviews carried out with each sociologist employed at University A, University B and University C, I hope to gather information to be used in my M.A. thesis. Because the study w i l l deal almost entirely with inform-ation gathered from the interviews, I am most anxious that you w i l l ' agree to an interview within the next few weeks. The study deals with research interests of faculty members at the 3 universities. Specifically, I am most interested in your current research and the factors you see as most important i n influencing your decision to carry on this particular research. I w i l l be calling you soon and can answer questions you might have concerning the study. I hope we can agree on,a con-venient time for an interview then. Sincerely, Candace Hanson Graduate Student ch/ 74. A P P E N D I X C INTERVIEW SCHEDULE I and II 1. What major and minor research projects are you c u r r e n t l y involved in? I f no current research i s being c a r r i e d out, what are your current reading and teaching i n t e r e s t s ? Do you have plans f o r future research? 2. Working backwards, how d i d you a r r i v e at the research you are doing? That i s , what influenced your d e c i s i o n to carry out, t h i s kind of enquiry? I l l 1. You haven't mentioned the influence of other s o c i o l o g i s t s . Which s o c i o l o g i s t s , i f any, have been i n f l u e n t i a l on your thinking? 2. Did your graduate t r a i n i n g and the associations with teachers and fellow students developed there influence your l a t e r research i n t e r e s t s or methodological or i e n t a t i o n ? What was the dominant t h e o r e t i c a l or methodological approach of your department i n graduate school? 3. What was the t i t l e of your Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ? 4. When was the Ph.D. conferred? 5. Going back a b i t further, why d i d you decide to study sociology at the graduate l e v e l ? 6. Since you completed graduate studies, with which i n s t i t u t i o n s have you been a f f i l i a t e d ? 7. Did you work at any jobs before graduate school of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t to you (outside sociology)? 8. In what country do you hold c i t i z e n s h i p ? 9. Where d i d you grow up? (Rural/urban, country) 10. What d i d your father and mother do f o r a l i v i n g ? 11. Do you hold membership i n any p r o f e s s i o n a l associations? (If yes, which ones? I f yes, are you now, or have you been, an o f f i c e r or committee member of an association? Specify. Do you think that membership i n has influenced your research interests?) 75. 12. Are you presently active in any local or national groups of any sort? 13. You've described the influences that have affected your decision to carry on this research. Are there other things that I haven't included i n my questions that are important influences on your research interests? I V 1. Considering your own teaching and research interests, how do you see your work in relation to the dominant teaching and research interests of the Department? 2. How do you think teaching and research at (University A, University B, University C) relate to departments, i n other universities? 76. A P P E N D I X D RESUME OF TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION 1. Dissertation T i t l e : Substantive Area: Date Conferred: Graduate School: Years in Residence: Dominant Orientation of Grad. School: Methodological orientation of Ph.D. Thesis: Theoretical orientation of Ph.D. thesis: 2. Influences on present research mentioned: 3. Current research: substantive area: (1) Methodological orientation: Theoretical orientation: Substantive Area (2nd research mentioned): Methodological orientation: Theoretical orientation: Substantive Area (3rd research mentioned): Methodological orientation: Theoretical orientation: Substantive Area (4th research mentioned): Methodological orientation: Theoretical orientation: 4. Influences on interest in sociology: 5. Sociologists cited as influential on subjects's thinking: Sociologists cited as influential on present research: 6. Institutional History since graduate school: 77. 7. Influences mentioned in response to question 13: 8. Occupations outside sociology of interest: 9. Citizenship: 10. Geographical origins: Rural/urban: 11. Father's occupation: 12. Mother's occupation: , 13. Professional associations of membership: Active i n : Influence of membership on research interests: 14. Extra-university associations, t i t l e : Type of organization: 15. Characterization of subject's research: Characterization of dominant research interest (in the department): Characterization of other departments' dominant interests: A P P E N D I X E 78. ACCOUNTING SCHEME Working backwards, how did you arrive at the research you are doing? I.e., what influenced your decision to carry out this kind of inquiry? F i r s t Research Interest Mentioned: IN ORDER MENTIONED QUOTE OR PARAPHRASE STATEMENTS MADE OR SIGNIFIED IN IMPORTANCE 1. Reference to the subject: personal qualities/experiences predisposing subject to this interest. (The subject) A. Intellectual development B. Non-academic experiences 2. Reference to the research area or problem i t s e l f . (The object) J A. Its place i n the discipline B. Its i n t r i n s i c qualities 3. Reference to the source through which the subject learned of the topic or area, or through whom the subject's interest increased. (The social setting) A. Colleague at present university. Personal: B. Fellow graduate student C. Teacher in grad. school D. Non-sociologist academic E. Non-academic Impersonal: F. General world events G. Indirect contact with a non-sociologist academic H. Indirect contact with a sociologist I. Indirect contact with a non-academic -J. The Discipline K. The Department Efficacy: L. Funds were available M. Data were available N. Demands of a job 0. Research was expected/ demanded A P P E N D I X F CATEGORIES MENTIONED BY SUBJECTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 to EH 18 w 1-3 19 03 D W 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 CATEGORIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X A P P E N D I X G DERIVED MATRIX SHOWING THE NUMBER OF SUBJECTS MENTIONING ANY TWO CATEGORIES TAKEN IN PAIRS Data in this matrix i s derived from the information in Appendix F. CATEGORIES 4 5 6 7. 9 10 11 12 3 1 6 3 5 4 2 5 0 4 1 1 4 1 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 3 5 0 2 1 3 0 1 2 5 4 3 3 8 0 5 2 1 2 1 5 0 2 1 8 4 6 2 5 1 4 6 3 5 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 1 A P P E N D I X H 81. - MATRIX INDICATING NUMBER OF CATEGORIES ANY TWO SUBJECTS MENTIONED IN COMMON SUBJECTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 2 ~1 ' 3 1 2 4 1 0 0 6 2 1 1 0 0 7 0 2 1 0 1 1 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 9 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 12 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 13 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 14 2 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 3 2 1 1 » 11 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 0 3 S3 " 18 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 = 19 2 4 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 20 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 21 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 0 22 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 3 23 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 3 0 2 0 1 2 24 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 25 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 1 26 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 1 27 3 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 2 0 1 2 2 3 0 2 3 2 1 2 1 28 1 5 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 0 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 29 2 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 30 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 31 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 32 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 3 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 33 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 34 2 3 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 2 3 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2. A P P E N D I X I FIRST MENTIONED SUBSTANTIVE AREAS OF SUBJECTS BY RESEARCH ORIENTATION SUBSTANTIVE AREA NUMBER OF SUBJECTS MENTIONING THE SUBSTANTIVE AREA TYPE I TYPE II 1. Formal Organizations 1 0 2. Sociology of Sport 0 1 3. Small Groups 3 o 4. Sociology of Mental Health 0 1 5. Youth and Socialization .0 1 6. Social Construction of Reality 1 0 7. Spatial and Temporal Constraints 1 0 8. Social Theory 1 • 0 9. Sociology of Sub-Groups 0 4 10. Areal Interests: South Asia 0 1 Africa 2 11. P o l i t i c a l Sociology 1 1 12. Social Control: Penal Institutions 1 0 13. Urban Sociology 1 0 14. Demography 1 • 0 15. Social Stratification 1 ' 0 16. Industrial Sociology • , i V 0 17. Language and Conversation ' 3 0 18. Sociology of Religion 1 1 19. Sociology of Work . 1 " 3 20. Social Problems: Ecology 0 1 21. Sociology of Education 0 1 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101484/manifest

Comment

Related Items