Bruce Curtis examines the validity of census information as a tool in sociology in his article “Reading reflexivity”. He goes over several historical accounts and examples to back up his point of view. Curtis argues that census information is often unreliable due to the inherently haphazard nature of information collection, stating that often individuals being asked questions for data collection don’t know how to answer them correctly (for example, he brought up the point how many families didn’t know how to answer questions about acres of land and crop yields). He adds that there are often gaps in information that the government attempts to fill in, or sometimes even cover up, for example the genocide in Rwanda in the 70’s and how
…show more content…
This supports his next point that these censuses are “reports of reports of reports” and cannot be considered absolute truth. He also alludes to the impersonal nature of using numbers in sociological studies. Curtis states that we need to adopt reflexivity in our studies, that is, a reflection of ourselves before we can reflect on others; that in order for our studies to be valid we must first examine the validity of our approach in the first place (hinting that the use of census information should not be relied upon too heavily given its erroneous and also decontextualizing nature).
This article offers a fantastic insight into the inherently “controversial”, as the author puts it, nature of sociology. It brings to light the widespread use of statistics as backbone of sociological studies and how this needs to be re-evaluated, a concept that can be described by the term “reflexive sociology”. I would argue that this is a perspective (although not one of the classical ones) being used by the Curtis (a critic of the Marxist approach for analysis of historical education). His life work is heavily based on this point of view (Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, 2017). Reflexive sociology doesn’t quite fall in with the classical perspectives of functionalism,
This supports his next point that these censuses are “reports of reports of reports” and cannot be considered absolute truth. He also alludes to the impersonal nature of using numbers in sociological studies. Curtis states that we need to adopt reflexivity in our studies, that is, a reflection of ourselves before we can reflect on others; that in order for our studies to be valid we must first examine the validity of our approach in the first place (hinting that the use of census information should not be relied upon too heavily given its erroneous and also decontextualizing nature).
This article offers a fantastic insight into the inherently “controversial”, as the author puts it, nature of sociology. It brings to light the widespread use of statistics as backbone of sociological studies and how this needs to be re-evaluated, a concept that can be described by the term “reflexive sociology”. I would argue that this is a perspective (although not one of the classical ones) being used by the Curtis (a critic of the Marxist approach for analysis of historical education). His life work is heavily based on this point of view (Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, 2017). Reflexive sociology doesn’t quite fall in with the classical perspectives of functionalism,