Download Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion

Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion
Overheads Lecture 3: Methods for Studying Religion Sociologically
 Without challenging anyone’s faith, sociology offers a unique
perspective on religion that differs from others
 It can contribute to a holistic analysis of this, ultimately,
multidimensional phenomena.
 It is important to approach this topic with both a healthy does of
humility and a corresponding openness to new ideas.
The Sociological Perspective:
 In sociology, we focus on:
- Religious groups and institutions (their formation,
maintenance, and demise);
- The behavior of individuals within those groups (e.g. social
processes the affect conversion, ritual behavior, or decisions to
defect to another group); and
- Conflicts between religious groups (such as Catholic vs.
Protestant, Muslim vs. Christian).
For the sociologist, beliefs are only one small part of religion.
 In modern society, religion is both a set of ideas (values, beliefs)
and an institution (structured social relationships). Sociologists
look at both.
 Religious institutions can also affect behavior quite
independently of beliefs, indeed, sometimes contrary to the
beliefs of that religion. As well, beliefs themselves can
sometimes have contradictory effects.
 Indeed, religious behavior can be either a cause or effect of other
social processes.
 Beliefs are not always at the heart of religious behavior. While
many focus on differences in belief between groups, there are
many interesting and important variations in style of worship,
1




authority structures, and psychological appeal that can have an
important impact.
Sociology, then, focuses on the social dimensions of religion –
including how religion affects society and the ways that society
influences religion. We look more to the common patterns rather
than the unique characteristics of each religion.
Beyond specific theoretical perspectives, sociology aspires to
take a scientific approach to studying religion. This is
characterized by: (1) objectivity; and (2) methodological
empiricism.
Objectivity: sociologists try to prevent personal beliefs, values, or
other biases from affecting the study. We try to remain open to
the data before us, to follow where it leads, and to avoid prejudging any particular group – whether we agree with them or
not. Our goal is to try to understand them in their own terms. This
is not always easy.
Methodological empiricism: sociologists only make claims about
the social world based on systematically gathered data. The social
scientist considers only evidence that are observable through the
five senses, only dealing in facts that can be measured, observed,
and tested. Not satisfied with general impressions, they seek
concrete, verifiable data to verify or disprove any generalization.
Sociological Methods of Studying Religion:
(1) Survey Research:
 This involves statistical analysis of data from closed-ended
surveys of individuals. It involves a survey instrument (what
questions are asked) and a survey sample (who is asked the
questions). The questions are generally fixed (i.e. have prespecified answer categories, such as in an ordinal ranking of how
often one prays).
 Responses to such questions can easily be converted to numbers
amenable to statistical analysis, which can be cross-tabulated and
compared.
2
 Multivariate inferential statistics: researchers try to infer the
causal effect of one or more independent variables on some
dependent variable. Control variables have to be held constant to
properly assess the real influence of the main variables being
studied.
 Questions must be chosen carefully to make sense to the
researcher and respondents (operationalization).
 The ideal for making generalizations is a simple random sample
of the population.
 Problems with statistical analysis:
(1) Cross-sectional surveys Do not provide causal information (need
longitudinal surveys);
(2) Interpretations of the meaning of the responses for respondents
themselves is sometimes lost;
(3) Closed-ended questions often don’t allow people to express
alternatives not considered by researchers;
(4) Sometimes what people answer is different from what they do;
(5) Survey information does not involve a direct study of religious
experience itself, but focuses on reports of religious experience
or its consequences.
(6)
Interviewing:
 Interviewing employs semi-structured or open-ended questions
that more readily speak to issues of meaning and process.
 Interviews begin with questions, but do not prescribe a set of
responses. They get respondents to begin talking about the topic
of interest and then specify certain follow-up questions (called
probes) an interviewer can use to encourage elaboration.
 An “interview schedule” with very few general questions and few
probes is called open ended; one with more specific questions
and more numerous probes is called semi-structured.
 Usually interviews are recorded and later transcribed for analysis.
Researchers seek to identify patterns in the data, often in the
types of language people use to describe their experiences and
3
understandings – language not unique to each person but drawn
from larger social patterns, cultural frames or toolkits.
 The richness of such data is often a strength, but the downside is
the considerable investment of time involved in interviewing,
transcription and analysis.
 Samples are necessarily small, often not random, and thus hard to
generalize to the broader population.
 Danger of the double-interpretation standing between the social
reality being investigated and the findings of the study (subjects
and researcher).
Participant Observation:
 Participant observation – or ethnography – involves immersing
oneself in the situation under study to observe the religious
beliefs and behaviors of people in a concrete social context.
 Once popular, covert observation is today seen as unethical.
 There are 3 related advantages of this method:
(1) The data produced are very “thick” –they tell a great deal about a
few people;
(2) The data are social rather than individual: the method does not
generalize from what individuals say, but from observation of the
groups and organizations themselves;
(3) This method does not rely on people’s self-reporting, but on
direct observation. This allows sociologists to see social
processes in action, to separate what people say and what they
do.
 Downsides:
(1) Data are normally limited to one case (e,g, a congregation),
limiting the ability of the researcher to make generalizations (i.e.
breadth is sacrificed for depth); and
(2) Reported data are bound to be somewhat biased by the
observer’s own “filtering system” (e.g. interests, system of
relevancies). Potential for bias.
4
Content Analysis:
 This involves analyzing the cultural “texts” (broadly understood
to include written documents, spoken words, or various other
media) to ferret out underlying religious themes or unarticulated
assumptions.
 The danger is the assumption that the texts being analyzed
accurately present the views of the people. Researchers must be
cautious in generalizing from the texts under consideration to
wider views in the population.
Historical-Comparative Analysis:
 This is a method that helps us understand that events in the past
shaped the present situation in which we are living and why
things turned out differently here than in other places.
 Sociologists seek patterns, general rules in the relationship
between social events and religious characteristics. The goal is to
develop a generalization or a theory that explain the relationship
– both in the particular situation and more broadly.
 The danger with this method is a tendency to impose one’s own
pattern on the data and thus distort history.
Experimentation:
 This involves subjects being randomly assigned to “treatment”
and “control” groups, where the only difference is the exposure
of the treatment group to the causal force in question.
 Rarely used in sociology due to ethical concerns. Quasiexperimental methods used at times based on existing events.
Triangulation:
 Using various methods when approaching a problem enables us
to substantiate or dismiss various generalizations about religious
behavior that would simply be impossible using one alone.
 The strengths of one method can cancel the weakness of another.
5