This
exercise is meant to be done in conjunction with the readings
we will be doing in the section on Durkheim. It will ask you
to reflect on Durkheim's likely responses to the data on the
basis of the broader understanding of his views that the readings
and lectures provide.
| "There
can be no sociology unless societies exist, and ..societies
cannot exist if there are only individuals." Emile
Durkheim, Preface to Suicide: A Study in Sociology |
Between
Marx's day and Durkheim's, statistical data and tools of
statistical analysis increased greatly. While Durkheim would
marvel at what a program like MicroCase can do, he would
instantly comprehend it. His Suicide: A Study in Sociology is
full of tables, and an appendix includes coded maps that
look much like those generated by MicroCase and GIS software.
In
the quotation above and throughout his work, Durkheim insisted
that society constituted a reality in itself ("sui generis"),
and could never be reduced to individuals. Hence the proper
focus of sociology was not the individual, but social
facts. Social facts for Durkheim deal with attributes
of society, not of individuals. So let's begin
by using MicroCase to explore this concept.
| "We
thus arrive at the point where we can formulate and delimit
in a precise way the domain of sociology." Emile Durkheim,
Rules of the Sociological Method |
Open
MicroCase CP (found in the statistics folder in the public labs).
The first thing you always have to do is to open a data file.
Click on File Management and then Open File. Then go: Archive>Trend>US>USTrend.mc4.
Click open. Now click on Basic Statistics>Historical Trends.
Click on Search, type in "suicide" and click OK. Click
on the right arrow to select the variable and change the date
range from 1950 to 2000. Print this table and attach it to this exercise when you hand it in.
Click OK. Click on V at the top of
the screen to see the variable again and answer the following
question:
1.
The suicide rate is the number of suicides per ____________
people in a given year.
Now
examine the graph to answer the following questions.
2.
Between 1950 and 2000, the suicide rate
ranged between a low of about _____ and a high of about ______.
3.
Durkheim argued that if acts like suicide were purely individual
in nature, they would fluctuate wildly from year to year. Social
facts in contrast would be far less likely to exhibit such wide
fluctuations, because attributes of societies seldom change that rapidly.
Let's assume a "wild fluctuation" to be an increase
or decrease in the rate of 50% or more from one year to the
next. Defined this way, does the suicide rate show wild fluctuations in the period covered in the graph? Explain your conclusion.
4.
In stressing the relative stability of social facts, Durkheim
did not deny that they could in some cases exhibit long-term
trends. Has there been a trend in the past fifteen years or so? What
has it been?
Now
click on Menu, then Historical Trends, and choose variable
#78, the violent crime rate. Select
it and
click OK. Print out this graph and attach it with the others to this exercise when you hand it in.
5.
Would Durkheim consider the violent crime rate to be a social fact?
Explain below.
6. Looking at the trend data for 1960-2000 only, how do the two graphs (for suicide and violent crime) compare? Is the trend the same or different? Discuss below.
7. Remembering Durkheim's rule that one social fact must be explained by another social fact(s), is it likely that the same social facts can explain the trend in the two graphs? Explain your conclusion below.
Return
to File Management>Open File>Archive>Ecological>States,
Cities and Counties>States06.mc4. Read the file description
and open the file. We will use this file for the rest
of the exercise.
8.
Why is this data file more appropriate for exploring Durkheim's
ideas than a General Social Survey (GSS) data set of the sort
we used in parts of the Marx and MicroCase Exercise? Explain
below addressing the question of the appropriate unit
of analysis for testing Durkheim's ideas.
As
you know from our discussion of class, Durkheim's famous study
of suicide took suicide rates as its dependent
variable--what he wanted to explain. Durkheim went on to argue that two central variables--social
integration and normative regulation--were independent variables
that explained variation in suicide rates. In the rest of this
exercise, we will explore whether this same argument applies
to other forms of deviance. You therefore will be asked to test
the following hypothesis by Durkheim, by operationalizing each
of the two variables:
The
higher the level of social integration, the lower the
level of deviance.
Level
of social integration
(independent
variable) |
|
Level
of deviance
(dependent variable) |
Click
on Basic Statistics>Univariate. Explore
the variable list in States06.mc4 and choose a variable
(but not one of those used above) measuring deviance that
you think fits Durkheim's conception of what is a social
fact. (If you are not sure what deviance is, review the
Durkheim quotes on crime or look it up in one of your sociology texts.)
9.
Provide the following information for the dependent variable
you chose.
Variable
# ______________ Label: ______________________
Variable
Description: ________________________________________________
10.
Explain why you think the variable you chose
is a social fact.
11.
Following Durkheim, now let us take social integration as
our independent variable. Drawing on the reading and class
discussion, explain below what Durkheim meant by social integration.
12.
You now need to operationalize social
integration. Explain what it means to operationalize a
variable like "social integration."
Explore
the variable list (you can search for key words from the assumptions
above) and choose one that you think is
a valid measure for social integration. Remember
that you must operationalize your independent variable independently
of your dependent variable; you must not use a
measure of deviance for both your independent and dependent
variable. The variables must be operationalized independently.
13. The variable
number I have chosen for the independent variable is _________.
14. The
variable description is ___________________________________________________
15. Explain
below why you think the variable you have
chosen is a valid way to operationalize the concept of social
integration. Be explicit about why you think that the variable
you have chosen is a good measure of social integration.
16. State
your hypothesis about the relationship between
the two variables you have chosen (which should be consistent
with Durkheim's thinking) below . In doing this be sure:
1) to state the hypothesis in proper format, as discussed
in the Marx and MicroCase exercise; 2) to state your
variables properly, so that the reader understands precisely
what the variables actually mean; 3) to start with the
independent variable and end with the dependent variable. (Note: this means that your hypothesis should begin: "The higher [or lower] the rate of social integration of a state, as measured by .....")
17. Now
run a scatterplot with your two variables, being careful
to ensure proper placement of the independent and
dependent variables. Click on regression line. Print
out the scatterplot and attach it with the others to this exercise. Papers
will not be accepted withiout this.
18.
Examine the Pearson's r for the following attributes (circle
one in each set; use the department's Table
and Graph Format Page at http://sociology.camden.rutgers.edu/curriculum/format.htm to
assess the strength of the relationship).
postive
statistically
significant
|
none
|
negative
statistically
insignificant
|
|
moderate |
strong |
19. Was
your hypothesis supported? Discussing only the data and associated
statistics, explain why you draw the conclusion you do.
20. Now
go beyond the data a bit: If your hypothesis was supported,
speculate on what causal connection might
exist between your independent and dependent variable. If
your hypothesis was not supported, speculate on why that
might be so. Might it be a problem in the operationalization
of your variables? Was your hypothesis misguided in terms
of what Durkheim would argue? On balance, do your findings
support Durkheim's theory? Discuss below.