Soc 201 Midterm 1

Front 1

Epistemology

Back 1

a branch of philosophy that deals with the origins, limits and methods of knowing. It is concerned with two major questions: How is knowledge acquired? How can we distinguish true or adequate knowledge from false or inadequate knowledge?

Front 2

Sources of Knowledge

Back 2

i) beliefs; ii) authority; iii) tradition; iv) intuition

Front 3

Empiricism

Back 3

our topic of investigation must be verifiable by observation and experience.

Front 4

Social Regularities

Back 4

Social science research attempts to identify the “patterns” of the social world. They are regularities because they repeat themselves; we are likely to observe the same thing again and again. Usually we cannot talk about a regularity always happening, but about patterns that tend to happen.

Front 5

Generalities

Back 5

With social regularities, we are looking for patterns that are repeated. With generalities, we want these patterns to be as general as possible while still being accurate.

Front 6

Objectivity

Back 6

Today, most social scientists recognize that doing science doesn’t mean that we have to let go of our personal motivations or the positions and perspectives we all have. What needs to be objective is the methods not the researchers themselves.

Front 7

Skepticism

Back 7

Science works under the principle assumption that every piece of knowledge must be constantly challenged and put to the test.

Front 8

Post-modernism

Back 8

Is a philosophical approach that developed during the second half of the 20th century, in response to the failures and problems in modernism and science.

Front 9

Theory

Back 9

A systematic explanation for the observations that relate to a particular aspect of life. The purpose of social theory is to explain or answer why the social world has certain patterns, operations or events.

Front 10

Two important principles that scientific theory must adhere to

Back 10

i. Testability - A theory has to be testable. This means that it has to produce: hypotheses, or predictions, that can be observed (are empirical). ii. Falsifiability - the logical principle that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation. It is important to keep in mind that saying a theory is “falsifiable” does not mean that it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

Front 11

Precision

Back 11

A good match (good fit) between the predictions of the theory and the actual findings.

Front 12

Consistency

Back 12

We would like to see that there is consistency inside the theory (for example, no contradictive predictions or logic).

Front 13

Scope

Back 13

We would want our theory to explain as much as possible. We are interested in explanations that are as wide as possible, and that can account for different people in different situations at different times.

Front 14

Parsimony

Back 14

The theory should be as simple as possible, with a minimal number of assumptions and conditions.

Front 15

Fertility

Back 15

The best theories are those that lead to new findings, new research and applications, and the development of other new theories.

Front 16

Overgeneralization

Back 16

making hasty generalizations on the basis of little evidence.

Front 17

Selective Observation

Back 17

occurs when we take special notice of some people or events, and tend to seek out evidence that confirms what we already believe.

Front 18

Barnum’s effect

Back 18

refers to the tendency for people to accept very general or vague characterizations as accurate depictions of themselves, downplaying those parts that don’t describe them so well.

Front 19

Gambler’s fallacy

Back 19

is the erroneous reasoning that a streak of one kind of luck foreshadows that of the opposite.

Front 20

Selective memory

Back 20

we tend to think something is more likely to happen in the future because we remember it more than other events.

Front 21

Inductive reasoning

Back 21

1. Observe, examine evidence
2. Develop concepts to create empirical generalizations

e.g. 6 in 10 children who are allowed to drink at home with their parents become alcoholics later in life (observation.) Therefore, attitudes towards drinking are formed by others near to us (empirical generalization)

Front 22

Deductive reasoning

Back 22

1. We begin with theory or an abstract relationship between concepts.
2. We then move toward concrete empirical evidence
e.g. Ideological theory says that racism, among other political and social beliefs, affects how people think about immigration (theory). People who are racially prejudiced will oppose migration by people of a specific race or ethnicity irrespective of economic benefits (empirical evidence).

Front 23

Conceptualization

Back 23

means specifying what we mean by a term.

Front 24

Operationalization

Back 24

means how we measure our concepts

Front 25

Hypothesis

Back 25

a testable statement about a relationship between a dependent and an independent variable

Front 26

Null Hypothesis

Back 26

predicts no relationship between variables

Front 27

Variable

Back 27

A concept that takes at least two values. A logical set of attributes.

Front 28

Attribute

Back 28

Categories/values of a variable.

Front 29

Dependent variable

Back 29

The variable that our study explains. It is the object of our study.

Front 30

Independent variable

Back 30

It is the variable that influences/affects the dependent variable.

Front 31

Level of Measurement

Back 31

tells us about the nature of the relationship between the attributes of a variable.

Front 32

Nominal level of measurement

Back 32

The attributes are only distinguished by name. You cannot tell if one is more/better/stronger/larger etc than the other. e.g - gender (male, female); race (African-American; white; Hispanic; other); whether the respondent is a student or not (yes/no).

Front 33

Ordinal level of measurement

Back 33

The attributes can be rank-ordered, but we cannot calculate the difference between them. e.g. income level (low income, middle income, high income)

Front 34

Interval/ratio level of measurement

Back 34

The attribute can be rank-ordered AND the difference between them can be calculated. e.g. age in years, income in dollar amount, weight in pounds etc.

Front 35

Unit of analysis

Back 35

the level of social life on which our research is based. It is the entity we gather data on.

Front 36

Ecological fallacy

Back 36

You commit ecological fallacy when you collect macro-level data (data on group level or country level for instance), but draw conclusions at the individual level.

Front 37

Reductionism

Back 37

occurs when you explain macro-level events using evidence only about specific individuals.

Front 38

Reliability

Back 38

refers to the consistency of our results.

Front 39

Two ways to determine reliability

Back 39

1) Test-retest - Here we repeat our test or measure over and over again to see if we’re arriving at consistent results.
2) Inter-rater reliability - Inter-rater reliability refers to the extent to which two or more raters (or individuals) agree. In other words, they observe the same thing and come to the same, or similar, conclusions.

Front 40

Validity

Back 40

The degree to which our study measures what it is supposed to measure.

Front 41

External Validity

Back 41

It is the ability to generalize our findings from a specific setting or small group of people to larger settings and groups of people.

Front 42

Content Validity

Back 42

refers to the extent to which our measure reflects our theoretical concepts.

Front 43

Face Validity

Back 43

This is about whether our measures make sense/seems reasonable at face value.

Front 44

Idiographic

Back 44

In this type of explanation the scope of our explanation is limited to one single case or a limited number of cases. Our goal is to explain one case or a limited set of cases fully. e.g. an in-depth historical study of the political, social and economic reasons behind WWII

Front 45

Nomothetic

Back 45

explanations are more general. They cover a wide range of experiences or observation. They indicate relationships between variables. Nomothetic explanations seek to explain a set of situations or events rather than a single particular one. e.g. an explanation of the overall political conditions that push countries to war.

Front 46

Correlation/Statistical relationship

Back 46

is one in which two variables tend to change together in a consistent, or proportional, way.

Front 47

Positive linear correlation

Back 47

Variables move in the same direction. e.g. The more educated a person is, the more prestigious his job is. The less income you have, the less satisfied you are with your life

Front 48

Negative linear correlation

Back 48

Variables move in opposite directions. e.g. More politically conservative people tend to be less tolerant toward immigration.

Front 49

Non-linear correlation

Back 49

There is a relationship between the two variables, but the rate of change is not constant. e.g. The relationship between age and physical strength. At first, as age increases, physical strength increases, but eventually as you get very old, your strength declines.

Front 50

Time order

Back 50

the independent variable has to precede the dependent variable. e.g. parent’s level of education → children’s level of education

Front 51

Spurious relationship

Back 51

one in which there is no connection, or statistical relationship, between the independent and dependent variables once a causally prior control variable is taken into account.In other words, we think that there is a relationship between two variables but this relationship is false because another variable in fact affects them both.

Front 52

Necessary cause

Back 52

a condition that MUST be present for the effect to happen.

Front 53

Sufficient cause

Back 53

a condition that, if present, guarantees that the effect will happen.Taking classes in the university is a necessary condition (necessary cause) for getting a degree. But it is not a sufficient cause. You also need to pass these classes.