Читать книгу Asian America - Pawan Dhingra - Страница 27

Social scientists utilize two general types of methods in studying a population: quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods refer to data-collection procedures that capture respondents’ opinions and both demographic and socioeconomic conditions through numerical measurements. Surveys are the most common type of instrument within quantitative methods. The most popular national survey is the US Census (including its American Community Survey). This method captures a wide range of information on numerous people. The questions are descriptive in nature. For instance, if one was interested in what enabled poor refugees to become middle class once in the United States, one could survey hundreds of refugees, both poor and middle class. Included in the survey could be questions on respondents’ education level, English abilities, career background, number of siblings, and other variables that might influence mobility. From there, researchers using statistical procedures could determine which variable, such as English-language ability, most impacted mobility.

Yet still unresolved from this survey would be why or how these variables influenced mobility. Surveys and quantitative methods generally cannot probe into respondents’ reasons for their actions to learn why individuals act as they do. What is it about one’s career background, for instance, that leads to different mobility patterns? Qualitative methods are best suited for these latter kinds of questions.

Qualitative methods refer to a mode of investigation meant to assess people’s reasoning and motivations for action, that is, how they feel and think about their lives. Common techniques include in-depth interviews and observations of human behavior (i.e. ethnography). Qualitative methods can answer “why” and “how” people behave, whereas quantitative methods address “what” people do, “how much” they do it, and “with what consequence.”

Like quantitative methods, the qualitative approach also has its drawbacks. Interviewing or observing others in depth is very time consuming. For instance, some ethnographers spend years in “the field,” that is, within a single community learning about its members’ way of life. Such an approach prevents learning about a large number of people, as surveys allow. Instead, qualitative methods enable a “case study.” Case studies refer to the study of a single group or individual who is thought to be representative of a broader phenomenon or population. For instance, for the study of mobility among refugees, one could find a group of middle-class refugees and poor refugees of the same ethnicity and living in the same city. Interviews and observations with fifty individuals from each class group would provide detailed information, such as about how they perceive the job market, how their lives abroad influence their job aspirations, and the like. Even as this method targets a small number of refugees, it would offer insight into how socioeconomic class affects the refugee experience and vice versa. Such a study, combined with the quantitative approach, would create a robust set of findings. Given the pros and cons to quantitative and qualitative methods, the best research strategy incorporates both types.

The theoretical perspectives frequently – not always – map onto particular methodologies. The various assimilation/incorporation paradigms often use quantitative methods. Because the theories concern how much a group is like or unlike the majority or other minorities, statistical evidence is most useful. In order to ascertain how individuals understand their background and what meaning race and other social categories have for people, it is best to utilize qualitative methods. This is most typical of the racialized minority approach. Having said that, scholarship increasingly uses a heterogeneity of methods and perspectives.