![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
While respecting the intellectual rigour of social constructionism, it is problematic that much of current UK sociology remains fixed in a qualitative research methods fugue. Despite programmes like Q-Step and its ESRC predecessors challenging this narrow approach, most sociologists are trapped by their lack of numeracy, projecting it onto new generations of undergraduates and new entrants to the profession. However, to explain why this situation has arisen, and why an innovatory programme like Q-Step cannot on its own neatly solve all of our difficulties, needs a better understanding of the discipline’s history and the social context which determines the form that sociology takes.
This article seeks to demonstrate how the framework of higher education social institutions has shaped sociology’s evolution before, during, and since the ‘great expansion’ of the discipline in the 1960s, from a tiny cadre to a substantial professional group. The rapidity of growth from small beginnings is emphasized, when the initial teaching of ‘social research methods’ actually consisted almost exclusively of mathematical statistics and survey methods, often taught by non-sociologists. This turned new generations of young sociologists against quantitative methods, leaving them open to the attractions of new intellectual schools like social constructionism and feminism. Whilst acknowledging other contributory causes, such as the cost of survey research, this review of early sociology’s approach to research methods prompts the lesson that today’s Q-Step and similar reforms should aim to assist the great majority of undergraduates to acquire quantitative skills, rather than producing a small number of statistical experts.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the helpful comments of the Editor and reviewers on my initial draft.