Seven Rules for Social Research 七条社会研究规则.pdf

COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Glenn Firebaugh: Seven Rules for Social Research is published by Princeton University Press and copyrighted, © 2008, by Princeton University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web. Users are not permitted to mount this file on any network servers. Follow links for Class Use and other Permissions. For more information send email to: permissions@ CHAPTER 1 The First Rule THERE SHOULD BE THE POSSIBILITY OF SURPRISE IN SOCIAL RESEARCH Social research differs fundamentally from advocacy research. Advocacy research refers to research that sifts through evidence to argue a predeter­ mined position. Lawyers engage in advocacy research in attempting to prove the guilt or innocence of defendants. Special interest groups engage in advocacy research when trying to influence the vote of lawmakers on a particular bill. The aim of advocacy research is to convince others ( juries, lawmakers) to think or act in a given way. Hence advocacy research pres­ ents evidence selectively, focusing on supporting evidence and suppressing contrary or inconvenient evidence. Social research, in contrast, does not suppress contrary or inconvenient evidence. In the social sciences we may begin with a point of view, but (un­ like advocacy research) we do not want that point of view to determine the outcome of our research. Rule 1 is not intended to suggest that you need to check your idealism at the door when you embark on a social research project. Far from that—if you don’t want to change the world for the bet­ ter, you might not have the doggedness needed to do good social research. But rule 1 is intended to warn that you don’t want to be blinded by pre­ conce