著者

青井 和夫

出版者

日本社会学会

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.2, pp.33-57,166, 1955-10-30 (Released:2009-11-11)

---

(1) In the classical theory of sociological experiment it was customarily believed thet the experimenter must hold all (independent) variables constant except one-either directly (by means of the Method of Removal, the Constant Method the Screening Method, the Counter-balanced Method, or Systematic Randomization) or indirectly (by means of the Matched Group Method). The 'rule of the single variable' was formulated before moreef ficient statistical methods and experimental designs had been developed. Theclassical experimental logic is only applicable when the complete identification of all factors is possible, when there is complete arithmetical correspondence between cause and effect, and when no interaction between the factors exists ; but in the complex social reality these conditions are never in fact satisfied. Therefore, modern experiments, with the statistical tools now available, handle several independent variables within the same design and also include as many dependent variables as seem necessary. One experimental design of this sort is the 'factorial design'. In this connection, the 'pure case' method advocated by K. Lewin and F. S. Chapin is logically defective.(2) Sociological experiments can be classified according to various criteria. For example E. Greenwood used three criteria ; namely, artificiality of the situation, simultaneity of the comparison and direction of relationship, and produced the following classification : (a) The Projective successional experiment.(b) The Projective simultaneous experiment.(c) The ex-post-facto cause to effect experiment.(d) The ex-post-facto effect to cause experiment.However, the most significant dichotomy of experiments would seem to be the classification into 'field experiment' and 'laboratory experiment'. This because of the importance of the 'strategy of social research' and the emphasis which must be placed on the supplemental relationship between field survey, field experiment, laboratory experiment and the clinical analysis of cases. Experimental methods must be viewed in the context of various other social research techniques. Otherwise they are doomed to futility.(3) However, traditional sociological experiments have at the same time many other weak points. In the first place, they have mostly handled uninstitutionalized small groups and have lost couch with macroscopic studies of societies. In experiments with small groups it is necessary to examine the cultural setting of the experimental situation which places a limitation on the general validity of the experimental conclusion, and at the same time to elaborate methods of transposing the essential structure of social reality into the experimental situation. Secondly, since experimentation with social phenomena is itself a historical event, we must examine the nature of experiments from the viewpoint of the sociology of knowledge. Thirdly, the spontaneity of the subjects is a necessary conditions for succesful sociological experimentation. Only experiments which call for the spontaneous response of the subject, experiments which are conducted with a view to the subject's welfare, experiments which gain the cooperation of the subject, can hope to succeed. Fourthly, in order to carry out large-scale social experiments, the experimenter must have wide control over social phenomena in order to make possible the setting up of experimental conditions. Except in the classless planned society these conditions are unlikely to be satisfied.

著者

青井 和夫

出版者

日本教育社会学会

雑誌

教育社会学研究 (ISSN:03873145)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, pp.120-125, 1957-03-30

著者

青井 和夫

出版者

日本社会学会

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.1, pp.29-50, 1955-07-30

---

1. Although the 'Experimental Method' has played a central role in natural scientific investigation, in the field of the social sciences it has remained in a primitive stage. There are many approaches to the problem of experimental methods in sociological research, and marked differences in this respect between German, French and American methodology. <BR>(1) German methodology (as, especially, in M. Weber's Verstehende Soziologie or H. Freyer's Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft) has emphasized the specific character of sociology and asserted that the essential purpose of sociology can be attained only if the experimental method is excluded from the methods of sociological research. This stand-point may be called the 'essential (ist) ' approach to experimental methods. <BR>(2) By contrast, French methodology (as, for example, in E. Durkheim's Les Regles de la Methode Sociologique) has directed attention to the process of logical inference and consequently, following J. S. Mill's system of logic, has claimed that sociological experiment is impossible. (Essentially, Durkheim's 'concomitant method' or 'comparative method' is not experimental.) This standpoint may be called the 'formal logical' approach. <BR>(3) Lastly, in American methodology (see, for example, G. Lundberg's Social Research) 'the methods of social research' means 'the techniques of gathering data' and methodology begins and ends with the consideration of methods of research and has thus been largely concerned with the technical difficulties of sociological experiment. This may be called the 'technical' approach. <BR>2. The origin of these different standpoints may be traced back to the traditional character of sociology in these countries and to the peculiar nature of their social structures, but, at all events, these have been the main barriers to experimental sociology. <BR>What, then, is experiment ? An experiment consists of two elements : the 'verification of hypotheses' and the 'creation of experimental conditions'. The former is the theoretical aspect and the latter the practical aspect. If we neglect either one we shall fail not only to grasp the essential nature of experiment (as, for example, did E. Greenwood, who neglected the practical aspect and included what he calls 'ex-post-facto experiment' in the category of experiment) but also to understand the nature of inference from individual instances to generalisations, the advance from correlation to causation, or the practical significance of experiment. From these points of view, we must, I think, include only Goode and Hatt's 'quasi-experiment', French's 'field experiment', Greenwood's 'projective experiment' and 'stochastical experiment', in the category of experiment proper, and must exclude from it 'natural experiments' ex-post-facto experiment', 'trial and error experiment' and 'controlled observation study. (These are preliminary stages to experiment itself.) <BR>3. The aim of experimental procedure is the determination of geno-typical phenomena or relationships ; the discovery of 'laws'. If such 'laws' can be discovered they will not only influence sociological concepts and theories, they will bring sociology itself out of the stage of verstehen or 'interpretation' to that of 'application'. For the 'futility' of sociological studies depends not only on their purpose, but also on the character of traditional sociological theories and the type of 'laws' they have been concerned to establish.

著者

青井 和夫

出版者

日本社会学会

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.1, pp.29-50, 1955-07-30

---

1. Although the 'Experimental Method' has played a central role in natural scientific investigation, in the field of the social sciences it has remained in a primitive stage. There are many approaches to the problem of experimental methods in sociological research, and marked differences in this respect between German, French and American methodology. <BR>(1) German methodology (as, especially, in M. Weber's Verstehende Soziologie or H. Freyer's Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft) has emphasized the specific character of sociology and asserted that the essential purpose of sociology can be attained only if the experimental method is excluded from the methods of sociological research. This stand-point may be called the 'essential (ist) ' approach to experimental methods. <BR>(2) By contrast, French methodology (as, for example, in E. Durkheim's Les Regles de la Methode Sociologique) has directed attention to the process of logical inference and consequently, following J. S. Mill's system of logic, has claimed that sociological experiment is impossible. (Essentially, Durkheim's 'concomitant method' or 'comparative method' is not experimental.) This standpoint may be called the 'formal logical' approach. <BR>(3) Lastly, in American methodology (see, for example, G. Lundberg's Social Research) 'the methods of social research' means 'the techniques of gathering data' and methodology begins and ends with the consideration of methods of research and has thus been largely concerned with the technical difficulties of sociological experiment. This may be called the 'technical' approach. <BR>2. The origin of these different standpoints may be traced back to the traditional character of sociology in these countries and to the peculiar nature of their social structures, but, at all events, these have been the main barriers to experimental sociology. <BR>What, then, is experiment ? An experiment consists of two elements : the 'verification of hypotheses' and the 'creation of experimental conditions'. The former is the theoretical aspect and the latter the practical aspect. If we neglect either one we shall fail not only to grasp the essential nature of experiment (as, for example, did E. Greenwood, who neglected the practical aspect and included what he calls 'ex-post-facto experiment' in the category of experiment) but also to understand the nature of inference from individual instances to generalisations, the advance from correlation to causation, or the practical significance of experiment. From these points of view, we must, I think, include only Goode and Hatt's 'quasi-experiment', French's 'field experiment', Greenwood's 'projective experiment' and 'stochastical experiment', in the category of experiment proper, and must exclude from it 'natural experiments' ex-post-facto experiment', 'trial and error experiment' and 'controlled observation study. (These are preliminary stages to experiment itself.) <BR>3. The aim of experimental procedure is the determination of geno-typical phenomena or relationships ; the discovery of 'laws'. If such 'laws' can be discovered they will not only influence sociological concepts and theories, they will bring sociology itself out of the stage of verstehen or 'interpretation' to that of 'application'. For the 'futility' of sociological studies depends not only on their purpose, but also on the character of traditional sociological theories and the type of 'laws' they have been concerned to establish.

著者

青井 和夫

出版者

日本家族社会学会

雑誌

家族社会学研究 (ISSN:0916328X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.5, no.5, pp.1-3, 1993-07-25 (Released:2009-08-04)

著者

青井 和夫

出版者

日本社会学会

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.6, no.1, pp.29-50,146, 1955-07-30 (Released:2009-11-11)

---

1. Although the 'Experimental Method' has played a central role in natural scientific investigation, in the field of the social sciences it has remained in a primitive stage. There are many approaches to the problem of experimental methods in sociological research, and marked differences in this respect between German, French and American methodology. (1) German methodology (as, especially, in M. Weber's Verstehende Soziologie or H. Freyer's Soziologie als Wirklichkeitswissenschaft) has emphasized the specific character of sociology and asserted that the essential purpose of sociology can be attained only if the experimental method is excluded from the methods of sociological research. This stand-point may be called the 'essential (ist) ' approach to experimental methods. (2) By contrast, French methodology (as, for example, in E. Durkheim's Les Regles de la Methode Sociologique) has directed attention to the process of logical inference and consequently, following J. S. Mill's system of logic, has claimed that sociological experiment is impossible. (Essentially, Durkheim's 'concomitant method' or 'comparative method' is not experimental.) This standpoint may be called the 'formal logical' approach. (3) Lastly, in American methodology (see, for example, G. Lundberg's Social Research) 'the methods of social research' means 'the techniques of gathering data' and methodology begins and ends with the consideration of methods of research and has thus been largely concerned with the technical difficulties of sociological experiment. This may be called the 'technical' approach. 2. The origin of these different standpoints may be traced back to the traditional character of sociology in these countries and to the peculiar nature of their social structures, but, at all events, these have been the main barriers to experimental sociology. What, then, is experiment ? An experiment consists of two elements : the 'verification of hypotheses' and the 'creation of experimental conditions'. The former is the theoretical aspect and the latter the practical aspect. If we neglect either one we shall fail not only to grasp the essential nature of experiment (as, for example, did E. Greenwood, who neglected the practical aspect and included what he calls 'ex-post-facto experiment' in the category of experiment) but also to understand the nature of inference from individual instances to generalisations, the advance from correlation to causation, or the practical significance of experiment. From these points of view, we must, I think, include only Goode and Hatt's 'quasi-experiment', French's 'field experiment', Greenwood's 'projective experiment' and 'stochastical experiment', in the category of experiment proper, and must exclude from it 'natural experiments' ex-post-facto experiment', 'trial and error experiment' and 'controlled observation study. (These are preliminary stages to experiment itself.) 3. The aim of experimental procedure is the determination of geno-typical phenomena or relationships ; the discovery of 'laws'. If such 'laws' can be discovered they will not only influence sociological concepts and theories, they will bring sociology itself out of the stage of verstehen or 'interpretation' to that of 'application'. For the 'futility' of sociological studies depends not only on their purpose, but also on the character of traditional sociological theories and the type of 'laws' they have been concerned to establish.

著者

青井和夫 庄司興吉編

出版者

東京大学出版会

巻号頁・発行日

1980

著者

青井 和夫

出版者

流通経済大学

雑誌

流通経済大学社会学部論叢 (ISSN:0917222X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.12, no.2, pp.5-6, 2002-03