Perhaps this debate belongs off-line - I'm not sure. But I hope I haven't
accidentally sparked an unecessary set of exchanges.
As a sociologist I have taught the use of official statistics since the days
when they consisted entirely of published tables and the most sophisticated
technical aid was the programmable calculator. In the last couple of decades I
have moved on to censuses and surveys, secondary analysis of large data-sets
etc. I have taught that all of these sources should be treated critically
whilst fully exploited. Sociology is theory-driven and evidence-based -
theorising makes one want to search out the data, and the data force one to
theorise. This circular processing of theory and data is how it should be. In
my own professional practice I have also used much qualitative material
(observation, interviews, archives etc). The ability to use, and indeed,
create, quantitative and qualitative data in an informed and critical way
(theoretically and technically critical) should be part of the basic stock in
trade of the sociologist.
Over the years there have been battles with two kinds of students (1) Those who
were dismissive of any kind of statistical evidence and simply wanted to make
assertions without reference to evidence and (2) Those who were frightened of
data because they were 'no good at maths' at school. The progress of the latter
was always a great joy when they found they could make sense of numbers after
all. Of late I have encountered some students and academics who reject the idea
of valid knowledge or even the validity of asking the question about what
knowledge could be valid. Some of these interlocutors claim to be
post-modernists. From such encounters one is relucantly drawn to the conclusion
that post-modernism is profoundly anti-sociology.
-------------------------------------
On the question of 'race': I can see no reason for believing that there are
human 'races', only ideas about race. The idea of human 'race' can be shown to
be socially constructed, almost infinitely malleable, and to have no basis in
biology. We don't need to go over all this yet again unless someone has come up
with an earth-shattering discovery in human biology that overturns a century of
scholarship. Perhaps the list can be informed if this happens.
The 'ethnic' categories used in the censuses are not terribly well-thought out,
combining as they do skin colour, nationality and culture. But the data are
valuable in many areas of study concerned with inequality. I have used them
(not uncritically, I hope) and published using them. This does not commit me to
any notion of 'race'.
-------------------------------------
I hope the two statements above are very much in tune with the spirit of the
founders and members of Radstats. If I had not retired I think I would write a
book called 'Liberation by Numbers' because statistically uniformed members of
the public are easily deceived and dominated. But instead I'm trying to put it
into practice in community development work on a deprived estate where we're
not only trying to demystify and make use of the state's statistics but the
local authority's as well. Anyhow, all this activity _really_ drives one back
to theory!
To finish on a lighter note; a friend with a second floor office when confronted
with students who claimed that everything was socially
constructed used to reply 'There's the window ... try gravity'
Best wishes to all
Robert Moore
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|