General

@permafrost: Qualitative research is not any form of empirical science that can be defined, measured and recorded and held accountable by the scientific process which protects us from ourselves. Sociology, as with every phenomenon, has its place, yes, but throughout history that place has more often than not been the root for genocide, institutional racism, etc. That is not to say that sociology is inherently or even often 'bad'...that's to stress why the rigid boundaries between empirical sciences and pre scientific pseudo science and theories need to be treated very suspiciously and held to account by utterly stringent application of a posteriori knowledge and justification. It's a huge threat and one compromise is enough to poison the well and set off reverberations skewing and corrupting endless amounts of data that could so incredibly easy set back the MISSION of science by years and decades and thus isolating and purifying all data after such a mistake is endlessly difficult.

Given the dual nature of the scientific process in experimentation and prediction one comes up entirely short. Observation and experiment have no place currently in Sociology as in order to do so one must have some instrument or method of reliably and consistently measuring 'it.' Further, the physical sciences are readily applied and experimented with consistently in laboratories using known and objectively consistent values and interelationships. Such things have no analogue in the field of Sociology. At core the physical sciences are based around paradigms used to extrapolated in various directions and 'predict' an outcome that is both reliably consistent, objectively measurable in such a way that is both quantitative and whose interrelationships are again reliably measured, predicted and consistent at all points at all times. These paradigms and their clearly defined parameters and interrelationships can be used to deduce an empirical value which is meaningful and consistent to itself, as well as, again, all other such empirical values which can invariably be predicted and expected with definitive success at all points at all times.

I don't mean to belabour the point to be rude or arrogant - there is fundamental difference between applying the scientific process AND SEEKING TO APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. It's impossible to overstate how potentially devastating not maintaining this rigid distinction actually is. One field is a science. The other, in the case of Sociology, is a theoretical paradigm seeking to reveal itself by investigation rooted in the ideas of the scientific process, scientific paradigm. Testing of hypothesis and various ideas and testing them out still further through the process of a posteriori justification with the educated guess and goal being that eventually through trial and error enough portions of a paradigm will appear somewhat consistently allowing the researcher to notice the trend, investigate it, categorize it, measure it and then test and retest it and every associated prediction at each various point in between - eventually seeking to deduce a paradigm and further sets of paradigms that will then be applicable to Sociology...allowing the field to be, like I said, reliably measurable at every juncture and non juncture, predictable at every juncture and non juncture and consistent and repeatable at all times in all situations as dictated by application of that paradigm.

But still...sociology has no such paradigm. It is a subject TRYING to become a science - but as yet is limited to a state far before that. This doesn't mean that scientists can't be sociologists, and that through empirical evidence and application of scientific paradigms that sociology can't ever become a science. But we aren't there yet and the data we have to work with is open to so many endlessly speculated and debated ideas and concepts that there isn't even -one- 'sociology.'
Simply put - sociology isn't a science and isn't subject to empirical evidence and isn't capable of being interpreted within a scientific paradigm or paradigms. In fact there isn't even one universally accepted tenet or even VALUE of sociology. Sociology simply has NO empirical facts. None. Not even close. Because of that sociology is not an empirical science subject to the applications of scientific paradigms and predictable, measureable and borne out reliably through a posteriori justification. The goals of qualitative research are tools to deduce meaning and singular, plural and patterned observable trends that when finally consistent enough can be honed in by further deductive reasoning endlessly working and reworking everything with the hope of suddenly glimpsing a consistent pattern of phenomena, or even just a pattern of TRENDS in phenomena, something that exposes the empirical core of the subject and blows it wide open.

What you're doing is a logical fallacy that never comes close to representing a distinction worthy of making. In fact just daydreaming about it is antithetical to a coherent approach to the scientific process involved in the elaboration and just doesn't represent any meaningful point in the mission of science to dispel all mystery and empirically define everything fullstop. Just as many people can reasonably state that all subjects relating to every facet of existence can be boiled down to an empirically measurable, predictable value and as such can be therefore extrapolated outward into paradigms and metaparadigms to provide meaningful structure and coherence to whatever pattern or trend is being revealed through whatever a posteriori justification and application of a posteriori knowledge. Presumably the goal is to slowly weed out a tentative formula or formulas necessary to hone in closer to the essence behind the trend or pattern...and then reliably and consistently deduce facts and/or values that represent and can be used to predict the behavior, as the end goal should be, of each and every associated 'sociological value,' its interrelationship with every other 'sociological value' and leave nothing a mystery. BUT we aren't there. Sociology is still just an abstract concept which again has no empirical values of any sort at any time ever - so it is a -pre science- in a -pre paradigmatic- state which is obviously being approached using as best as possible the tenets and processes used in the scientific process and, even, here, the 'associated philosophy informing the scientific process.'

I realize that's pretty rigid and not very open minded or creative - but when should such empirical non values as creativity and being open minded be allowed to poison the well of empirical science by introducing variables that far from being able to even 'predict' we cannot even MEASURE THEM. Because of that field of empirical science must remain absolutely unbending and uncompromising in its refusal to introduce any such emotional or subjective values as part or parcel of any form of empirical science at all. Honestly, sociology isn't even the relatively close on the path from pseudo science to science. There are far more phenomena out there that are far more reliably and predictably relevant to the scientific process...but even in those situations the compromise in rigidity is a dalliance no scientist of value is willing to even daydream about. For example - astronomy. It's undeniably a 'revealed' science. That's almost universally agreed on. But so much of it is not predictable, not observable, not measurable...and it is definitely not an empirical science as such.

Again - I'm sure sociology is a science. But the language used to formulate reliable statements of value and interrelationships within the realm of empirical science is simply not reconcilable with anything not stringently bound to and by the scientific process at every stage. It's a pre science operating under constantly evolving paradigms based solely in subjective theorization and estimates so subjective that we don't know what we're measuring, talking about, referring to...even when we're specifically referring to 'it,' It's laughably distant from here where we are to a point even approaching a stage where we can with any shred of intellectual honesty think that we are in any position to confidently assess and make any manner of interpretation of anything in Sociology at all.

My annoyance here is that given the fact that once all mystery is gone that every phenomena is at core an empirical a posteriori science. That doesn't mean just anyone can go around calling everything they feel strongly about a 'science.' Just because something will invariably become a science doesn't mean that the idiots measuring skull sizes and referincing it back to psychological traits and characteristic are 'scientists.' At it most rudimentary and most meaningless point yes, they are, but the distinction such an evaluation intends to make is so far removed that it's just retarded to stoop that low and be that desperate. It sounds less like the behaviour of a scientist and more like the symptoms of a psychological disorder. It's utterly regressive.

On the other hand - it also means that it's our job in the end to figure it out. All of it. Everything. Only once we are able to destroy mystery and every value/variable/fact is able to be examined, documented, classified and its relationship...and interrelationships with...all other values can be reliably and predictably coordinated at every junction and non junction, as defined by the scientific process, THAT is when the mission of science is complete. And that is why it's retarded to compromise on these rigid standards. These processes and paradigms force us to be honest with ourselves. You don't need to call yourself a scientist to feel good about yourself.

@ashleyattacked: Don't sounds so upset that you forgot, or just didn't know, that qualitative research was a thing lmao

You could write about proper social etiquette and how horribly offended people get if you don't do them.
Some examples could be like tipping at a restaurant, holding the door for people behind you, having to greet people.

^ there was a bot bumping threads containing paper in the title to promote a site
its funny to see OP got help for his paper after some years though
edit: ah, the bot is still there i tho it was banned o.o

wait why is this thread from 2013

Write about my story! I came from outer space as a tiny bacteria. I had fallen into someone's ear and i had slowly made my way to their brain. At that point i looked for the cerebral cortex and took over their cognitive thinking and made it my own. I do not remember a thing about my family. All i remember is is having met these strange creatures, it was like i was in a dream. The fabric of time and space continuum had broken. All hell and broken loose! I slowly started to notice the verisimilitude in my existence as i came upon to gaze in the sky to see a brobdingnagian floating in the sky. I suddenly felt a certain pandiculation! It all made a lot of sense. I had come to the realization...i had figured out the true function of my nipple...its really for......................................

Write about how sociology is the only subjective emotion based science where you can cite your 'feelings' as equivalent to peer reviewed papers.

In other words sociology is a joke.

The idea that being ghetto is good and how socitey feels being poor in a bad spot can make someone "cool"

In my opinion the Asian topic sounds a little bit like a racism. Sorry if I'm wrong but considering our society's tolerance obsession they won't pat you on the head for such a topic. If you need help with your writing or choosing on what to write you can always address the Papersmaster.com - there are a lot of useful tips.

Social cliques, specially Asian ones.

Most Asians hang out with their own type (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc...) because they feel a sense of familiarity with their crowd. Moving to a whole new country can be hard at first, so instead of trying to assimilate, you block others out and turn to what's comfortable for you. This leads to cliques and prevents you from properly integrating into American culture.

Also, Asians have this need to show case wealth and social position in life. One reason why Asians are so brand obsessed is because everyone else around them is also doing the same thing. How many Asians do you see carrying Apple products, if only for the brand name alone? Psy's Gangnam Style is an entire social commentary on the superficiality of Asian culture.

[quote=LeonardoDevincy]I don't like to write. It hurts my palm. [/quote]

You're not the only one

p2s