An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and challenges in social research

CRFR associate director Linda McKie and co-editor Louise Ryan introduce their new book; An End to the Crisis of Empirical Sociology? Trends and challenges in social research. London: Routledge 

Social research is facing challenges, as well as exciting new opportunities, from the growth of private sector research companies, rapid advance of social media, and intense debates on privacy and big data. At the same time in universities, research councils and learned societies we are debating the teaching of research methods. How can we ensure the training of future generations of researchers? In what ways do we need to update training and how can we maintain and enhance quality in research? These debates have wide implications for research on families and relationships as we consider the diverse and dynamic nature of intimate and family life.


The idea of ‘crisis’ is discussed in the opening chapter. The idea of a crisis in social research coalesced around developments in big data, the growth in research undertaken by private sector companies and charities, and debates on causality and the claims emanating from research projects. In questioning any simplistic notion of a ‘crisis’, this book brings together well-known, leading authors in the field as well as newly emerging young scholars to explore the many innovative strategies and techniques being employed within the social sciences.

In subsequent chapters colleagues working at the forefront of these debates offer a range of data and insights on these issues. Evelyn Ruppert examines the ecologies of big data, while Richard Webber and Trevor Phillips use a range of demographic data to research entrepreneurship among different migrant groups. Various applications of big data are examined by Roger Burrows, and David Miller and William Dinan to research elites and the super-rich. These chapters illustrate the practical uses of big data for social scientists. This topic is further explored by Dhiraj Murthy in his analysis of how twitter data could be used to answer sociological questions.

Further innovations in research techniques are discussed by David Byrne in his use of the extended case study to conduct comparative research on cities. Annabel Tremlett and Roxy Harris consider how researchers could go beyond the interview to use a range of ethnographic methods. Focusing on survey data, Rachel Lara Cohen discusses the possibilities of a quantitative feminist sociology. The advantages of mixing quantitative and qualitative methods are explored by Alessio D’Angelo and Louise Ryan in their analysis of migrant social networks; most research project designs are mixed method and this is a core debate for researchers. Despite the many opportunities for innovative research, there are practical challenges in teaching research skills to under graduate sociology students, as discussed by Malcolm Williams, Geoff Payne and Luke Sloan. In his thought-provoking epilogue, Mike Savage reflects on the many ways in which sociologists are responding to on-going challenges and ends on a rather optimistic note.

The book provides up to date and accessible material of interest to diverse audiences, including students and teachers of methods, research design, data analysis, policy analysis and social media. The authors offer critical insight into how education/ academia is responding to methodological advances and innovations and the impact of this for student training.

For a 20% discount please visit: https://www.routledge.com/sociology/posts/9779

===================

CRFR associate director Linda McKie is Professor of Sociology and Head of the School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University.
Louise Ryan is Professor of Sociology and Co-Director of the Social Policy Research Centre at Middlesex University

Contested Cohabitation Rights

Following recent debates on inheritance rights for cohabiting couples, we welcome this guest blog from Samantha Callan and Linda McKie, authors of Understanding Families: a Global Introduction:

"One of the aims of our recently published book, Understanding Families: a Global Introduction, was to introduce readers to many of the academic and popular debates that swirl around the subject of family life in the twenty-first century. Chapter Five considered the diversity of couple relationships accorded social legitimacy in many minority world contexts – yet attitudes remain complex and contested. We explained how marriage has become deinstitutionalised: less governed by the social norms that provide a framework for behaviour, and increasingly concerned with the quality of the relationship.

The US demographer Andrew Cherlin points out, somewhat paradoxically, that in many countries there is a contrary trend of relationships such as cohabitation becoming more institutionalized. In the United States, states are taking steps towards granting cohabiting couples married couples’ rights and responsibilities. Canada has erased legal distinctions between marrieds and unmarrieds (heterosexual or same-sex) who have lived together for more than a year and French Civil Solidarity Pacts give registered couples most of the rights and responsibilities of those who have wed after three years of the pact being signed.

This trend towards institutionalising relationships which are considered to be, intrinsically, more informal continues to excite heated discussion. Last month the United Kingdom House of Lords debated a Private Members Bill on the subject of inheritance rights for cohabitants in cases of intestacy (where someone dies without leaving a will). Lord Lester of Herne Hill, a respected law reformer, proposed in the Bill that a surviving cohabitant would automatically be entitled to the same share that a bereaved spouse would receive if they and the deceased had had a child together and had lived in the same household as if they were married or in a civil partnership for two years; if the relationship was childless the qualifying period would be five years.

Protagonists on both sides claimed the moral high ground of preserving choice in making their arguments: Lord Lester stated that a decision not to get married should not lead to legal disadvantage while Baroness Deech passionately defended citizens’ rights not to be governed by the law if they had decided against or simply not made the explicit commitment of marriage. Among other sources she quoted extensively and perhaps counter-intuitively from Guardian blogs on the subject. The most humorous paragraph in the debate undoubtedly being, “They move the goalposts so that despite not being married, you can still get your wallet nicked.”

The Hansard transcript does better justice to the complexity of the surrounding arguments but does not make the outcome of the debate explicit. Although the Government Minister did not oppose the continuing passage of the Bill into the Committee Stage, the ‘strong reservations’ he expressed on its behalf mean that it will languish in the procedural doldrums and get nowhere. Many issues of family law meet the same fate in the UK and other Parliaments, precisely because of their personal and contested nature. Many (but not all) judges, legal practitioners and media commentators clamour for the certainty of black letter law. But it is precisely the lack of a clear public consensus that makes this particularly dangerous territory for politicians in many jurisdictions to stray into – and likely to remain so."