Symposium on Methodology in Qualitative Sociology
Introduction: The Methodological Strengths and Dilemmas of Qualitative Sociology Jeff Goodwin and Ruth Horowitz
The articles in this symposium critically reﬂect upon the methodological strengths and limitations of several diverse yet important works of qualitative sociology, broadly deﬁned: Michael Schwalbe’s Unlocking the Iron Cage: The Men’s Movement, Gender Politics, and American Culture (1996); Paul Willis’s Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs (1977); Perry Anderson’s Lineages of the Absolutist State (1974); Doug McAdam’s Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (1982); and Julian McAllister Groves’s Hearts and Minds: The Controversy Over Laboratory Animals (1997). Among the questions addressed in this symposium are the following: Are the general theoretical or empirical claims of these books persuasive, and are they well supported by the data that are presented by the authors? Are these books persuasive because they adhere to certain methodological rules or standards, if only implicitly? And what are those rules or standards? Or are these books powerful or persuasive despite, or even because of, their lack of methodological rigor, conventionally understood? And would these books have been improved appreciably had they been more methodologically self-conscious or differently designed? This symposium thus addresses the concern—shared by quantitative social scientists, general readers, and not a few qualitative sociologists themselves—that qualitative sociology lacks methodological rigor and, accordingly, truly reliable or generalizable ﬁndings. Some social scientists view qualitative sociology, in no uncertain terms, as methodologically and empirically “soft” and highly subjective, if not completely solipsistic—a characterization that a few qualitative researchers have ironically embraced. At best, according to certain critics, qualitative sociology might generate provisional hypotheses that more rigorous social scientists can then go forth to test and revise, but it cannot itself glean much solid understanding of the social world. We believe that this view of qualitative sociology is badly mistaken, and the essays in this symposium collectively refute it. Qualitative sociology is not— or need not be—merely literature or navel-gazing, and its ﬁndings have proven 33
2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
Goodwin and Horowitz
extraordinarily insightful, persuasive, and inﬂuential. At its best, qualitative sociology can be very rigorous and “scientiﬁc” indeed. This symposium demonstrates that a signiﬁcant number of qualitative sociologists, who have not abandoned the idea that qualitative researchers can do scientiﬁc or quasi-scientiﬁc work as well as quantitative researchers, have produced important and inﬂuential research. Qualitative sociology, in short, has some very important things to say about the world beyond the researcher. Accordingly, both quantitative social scientists and those qualitative researchers who have bought into the quantitative critique and embraced subjectivism need to take another look at what qualitative sociology can achieve. DEFINING QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY: HOW “SCIENTIFIC” IS IT? Grave suspicions about the methodological rigor of qualitative sociology provide the intellectual backdrop to Designing Social Inquiry: Scientiﬁc Inference in Qualitative Research (1994), a much-discussed methodological text by Harvard political scientists Gary King, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba. King, Keohane, and Verba believe that qualitative social scientists need to pursue their research in a more rigorous and scientiﬁc manner, which basically means, for them, adhering as much as possible to the standards of quantitative research. (Signiﬁcantly, they do not ask whether quantitative work might be improved by emulating certain...