Best social sciences methodology books according to redditors

I agree with /u/keyilan that its not too late to go back to school in your 30s. I started my PhD at 33. I have a friend who started her MA (and is now in a PhD program) in her 50s. That being said, if you have a stable job you're happy with and want to avoid going into debt, and if you're not completely and totally sure you want to pursue a degree in anthropology, then it's probably better to be an autodidact.

Anyway, here's some suggestions for some stuff on sociocultural anthropology methodology (and historical descriptions of such things) that may be of interest to you.

Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches by H. Russel Bernard (he is the methods guy in sociocultural anthro--and this book is rather dry but super detailed and will teach you all the basics of anthro methodology.)

Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (a classic text in indigenous methods.)

Participant Observation and The Ethnographic Interview by James Spradley

Fieldwork Is Not What It Used To Be edited by James Faubion and George Marcus (I have not read this, but have heard good things about it.)

Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German Enlightenment by Han Vermeulen (this is a history of ethnographic methods rather than a book about methodology, but it's super interesting.)

Your best shot is to read a book on the topic. My personal favorites are:

1. Interviews in Qualitative Research by King and Horrocks
   
   
2. For a briefer overview, see the chapter in Becoming Qualitative Researchers
   
   3) Learning from Strangers by Weiss is also a great introduction
   
   
   There is really no shortage of resources on the topic- there are also mountains of journal articles covering the topic as well.

Congrats! Economy and Society? [Foundations of Social Theory] (http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Social-Theory-James-Coleman/dp/0674312260/)? Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences? I'd go for the latter, definitely helped me the most (and I still use it regularly).

Also check out this list or this one.

EDIT: A question is also whether you want to have a book to put on your shelf or whether you actually want to read/use it.

>Because since they receive all these amazing perks by paying such a high tax rate, then wouldn’t it be logical to say that they could achieve perfection if they paid 100% in taxes.

That doesn't follow logic? The logic is that higher input (at a manageable % of income) + higher output (at a manageable % of GDP) = more productive society; not that 100% input = more productive society. I understand where it's possible to get confused, but it does take a bit of a leap to take it to the absolute extreme there.

It could be good for you to read Esping-Anderson's Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Clasen's Comparative Social Policy and Pierson's The Welfare State Reader, if you're confused about some of the logic behind Social Democratic states.

>First, can any of you recommend some good kid-friendly resources for learning the fundamentals of physics, electrical theory and engineering, particularly as they relate to Nerf blasters?

https://smile.amazon.com/Nerf-Blaster-Modification-Guide-Unofficial-ebook/dp/B07KGG7P89/

https://smile.amazon.com/Thinking-Physics-Practical-Lessons-Critical/dp/0935218068/

This same kind of thing can be accomplished using breadboard, nerf mod supplies, switches, battery packs, solid-core wire, and a multimeter.

https://smile.amazon.com/Snap-Circuits-SC-100-Electronics-Exploration/dp/B00008BFZH/

https://smile.amazon.com/3D-Printing-Projects-DK/dp/0241302218/

And then when a bit older

https://smile.amazon.com/Research-Design-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/1506386709/

I would strongly recommend Charles Orser's Archaeological Thinking: How to Make Sense of the Past as an introduction to how archaeologists collect data and interpret into cohesive ideas. It gets into the fascinating, fundamental questions of archaeological methodology without the boring fact dumps of a textbook like Greene's.

Its taught in universities to some extent. The technical term is ethnic pseudoscience.

http://www.amazon.ca/Research-Is-Ceremony-Indigenous-Methods/dp/1552662810/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0Q9BWXY159DD783MSEHQ

This sort of thing. I had a Social Justice class (which I failed) which tried to get us to take Vine Deloria's creationism seriously. Like I'm sorrying - genetics and linguistics kinda throw a wrench into that mystical horseshit.

If you need help constructing and conducting qualitative interviews, I strongly recommend the following books:


Kathy Charmaz's (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory 2nd edition

This is a very readable introduction to Grounded Theory and has a good chapter on crafting/conducting intensive interviews.


Brinkmann & Kvale's (2015) InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing 3rd edition.
A comprehensive guide to conducting research interviews.


Rubin & Rubin's (2012) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data 3rd edition.
A good overview of the responsive interviewing approach.

Archaeologist here (but married to a cultural anth ;-) ). I've found the Ethnographer's Toolkit series to be a good, clearly explained resource. There are seven volumes detailing different methods and stages of research. I've mostly used Vols 1 (Designing) and 5 (Analysing) and liked their explanations. Each book is about $35 so check with your libraries to see if they carry them or can order them. It also looks like the series editors have a one-volume edition of "Essential Ethnographic Methods" for $35 as well, but I haven't read that one. Might have to pick it up the next time I'm doing qualitative research though.

Check out Johnny Saldana's books on qualitative coding approaches https://www.amazon.com/Coding-Manual-Qualitative-Researchers/dp/1446247376 this is the second edition but i bet you can get the first much cheaper or in PDF form. Also look at Cathy Charmaz's texts on grounded theory coding https://www.amazon.com/Constructing-Grounded-Introducing-Qualitative-Methods/dp/0857029142/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500701882&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=cathy+charmaz+qualitative+grounded+theory+constructing

The research question is a little oddly phrased ("does x cause y" is vs "is x causually related to y"). The second option sounds like you're just hedging against endogeneity problems.

I think your case studies are more problematic than your question. Based off your response to u/Tony_the_Tamil_Tiger, greater production of refugees is your dependent variable. All the case studies you listed are conflicts that produced huge numbers of refugees, which implies that you chose cases on your dependent variable, which is something you must not do.

What you should do is find a number of wars in which states used proxies (and several in which proxies were not used) regardless of refugee counts. If all your cases involve large numbers of refugees, then you've got no variation on the dependent variable to explain. A good book that goes into these problems in case study construction is Bennett and Checkel (ed)'s Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Strategies for Social Inquiry

> I get that you are using free market theory for the basis of your argument (like a Christian citing the bible), and that Graeber and anthropology disagrees with those free market theorists. I find that amusing but hardly challenging or even anything to be taken seriously.

So, back at ya I guess? You are citing a singular anarchist anthropologist, like a Christian citing the bible.

>the state already exists. Thus markets. That example doesn't refute Graeber at all. It proves him. Lol.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That argument does not follow.

>And anyhow, I've read the Hummel piece before, he clearly had an ideological blockage that prevented him from understanding what Graeber was saying.

I would argue that Graeber has an ideological blockage that prevents him from understanding economics and economic history. I like Graeber's analysis sometimes -- he's a good writer and has some things to contribute -- but he's a quintessential ideologue that works backwards from his established political conclusions. There are certainly instances where markets and money preceded barter, but the historical record does not reveal that this is always true or even that it was common.

>You need to understand the conditions prevailing then -- no one was buying or bartering anything and debt money was used to account for social ineaqualities and social relations (marriages, etc). And you didn't trade for equivalents. Thus, not barter and not markets. Sorry bro.

Going by Graeber's redefinition of barter, and the marxist definition of markets, correct. However using the consensus definition of both muddies the water a lot more. Graeber (saying again that I ike some of his work) unfortunately continues the recent trend (the last 30 years or so) of social anthropology that is deeply anti-science and draws dubious conclusions with a high level of confirmation bias. Dr. Lawrence Kuznar as well as Dr.Edward Dutton have both written great critiques of modern anthropologists and their dubious postulating.

I used academic, news, direct/firsthand sources, "from the horse's mouth," so to speak.

If you want, I can direct you to the author(ess) of the Post Meritocracy Manifesto, a self-described "Leftist," who professes marxist beliefs (and who looks/has a twitter bio that is exactly like you'd expect.)

Meritocracy implies a rise to the top- which is inherently anti-marxist in belief. Marxism is the belief that there shouldn't be a "top" or a "bottom." In a Marxist utopia, all is equal. One of their more annoying beliefs is that objective scientific methodology to determine objective right/wrong, good/bad, and any other lens of measurement is but a tool of 'white supremacy'. Ideology matters more than data. Even the authors of the academic papers, who are themselves liberals, profess that this is a huge problem in sociology. I can give quotes if you need, from their actual academic paper (the one non-hoax, of the dozens of hoaxes they got either featured, published, reviewed, or wrote out but were only in the pipeline).

In an era of the replication crisis, in which most experiments can't be replicated successfully (Which especially affects the social sciences) this is a replication of the famous Sokal Hoax- replication is more vital to proof than ever. Therefore while this was technically a repeat, it's still significant and lends further evidence to serious academic malfeasance within their discipline. That the person I am replying to is a sociologist, therefore, should be of no benefit to their authority.

I'm a data scientist. I like data that says "good" and "bad." I live in reality. Gaslighting me will be ineffectual when I have actual data with solid sources.

If you ever feel like you need or want more math backround, you could try Mathematics for social sciences

Modern Social Theory: Key Debates And New Directions

The books that I most need are:

Principles of Archaeology

Field Methods in Archaeology

Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice

They are kinda pricey, which is why I haven't been able to get them yet, but nowhere near $100. And used is perfectly fine. I've just been borrowing from the library whenever they are available, so it's not urgent that I get them, but it would be nice to not have to stay in the library for hours, because you can't leave with textbooks. And in case it wasn't obvious, my major is Anthropology with a specialization in Archaeology. I am taking about four archeology classes this semester alone.

Also, if those are way too out of price range, I have a whole wishlist full of learning resources. Anything would help!

Archaeology Learning And Resources Wishlist

As everyone else has said, textbooks are not going to teach you the physical way of excavating anything. All it will do is describe to you the process and the thinking behind the process. For a thorough education in field methods, I always recommend participating in or volunteering on an actual excavation. It's the best way to determine whether archaeology or history is better for you (I have several friends who changed their major after not enjoying their first excavation).

Most universities offer a field school, a university sponsored excavation for the express purpose of introducing students into field methods and practice. The site I work at is the field school for a few universities, including Harvard.

Here is a link to the website, which includes a volunteer application, if you are interested in working in Israel.

http://digashkelon.com/

I realize you may be more interested in digging in Britain. By all means, look up field schools there. It is by far the best way of learning methods, and you learn far more than you can learn in a book. You learn how it feels, how to determine what tool to use, how certain decisions are made about where to dig and how to dig, how the recording process works, etc.

If you feel the need to read a book anyway, I suggest Field Methods in Archaeology.

http://www.amazon.com/FIELD-METHODS-IN-ARCHAEOLOGY-SEVENTH/dp/1598744283

This was my first textbook I ever purchased, and I still have it, though I have not read it since that first semester. It was actually a textbook used for a field school, so I think it would cover most of the issues you want to know.

> Please tell me about your experiences, so that I can judge.

Amazing. In any case, the book was by Allan G Johnson.

Looking for:

The Practice of Nursing Research. Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence (8e) – Gray, Grove, and Sutherland

ISBN-10: 9780323377584

ISBN-13: 978-0323377584

Amazon.ca - https://www.amazon.ca/Burns-Groves-Practice-Nursing-Research/dp/0323377580/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+practice+of+nursing+research&qid=1568254522&s=digital-skills&sr=8-1

Research Design (5 e.) – John Creswell

ISBN-10: 1506386709

ISBN-13: 978-1506386706

Amazon.ca - https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1506386709/ref=ox_sc_act_image_3?smid=A1UCKYHWK5O0P5&psc=1

Women’s Health, Second Edition: Intersections of Policy, Research, and Practice – Armstrong and Pederson

ISBN-10: 0889615705

ISBN-13: 978-0889615700

Amazon.ca - https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0889615705/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=A3DWYIK6Y9EEQB&psc=1

Knowledge Development in Nursing: Theory and Process (8e) – Chinn and Kramer

ISBN-10: 0323530613

ISBN-13: 978-0323530613

Amazon.ca -https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0323530613/ref=ox_sc_act_image_1?smid=A12UFBL1JPT2UF&psc=1

Step 1: Deep breath.

​

Step 2: see if you can find this book at your school's library - it breaks down grounded theory in a way that makes it easy to digest and understand: https://www.amazon.com/Qualitative-Inquiry-Research-Design-Approaches/dp/1506330207

​

Step 3: Talk to your advisor about your confusion - explain how you've looked into what grounded theory is and you're unsure of how to use it with the data you've already collected. Can they talk you through some basics, or recommend another faculty member who can?

looking for pdf's of the three books below. $5 each:

Shelley Cohen Konrad - Child and Family Practice: A Relational Perspective - isbn: 019061613X - https://www.amazon.com/Child-Family-Practice-Relational-Perspective/dp/019061613X

James R. Dudley - Social Work Evaluation: Enhancing What We Do (2nd Ed.) - isbn: 0190615435 - https://www.amazon.com/Social-Work-Evaluation-Second-Enhancing/dp/0190615435/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536554504&sr=1-1&keywords=Social+work+evaluation%3A+Enhancing+what+we+do

Allen Rubin, Earl R. Babbie - Essential Research Methods for Social Work (4th ed.) - isbn: 1305101685 - https://www.amazon.com/Empowerment-Essential-Research-Methods-MindTap/dp/1305101685/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536554614&sr=1-1&keywords=Essential+research+methods+for+social+work

> pronouns don’t refer to biological sex

Sure they do. For instance, we refer to our biologically male pets as "he," and our female pets as "she."

>they’ve existed since hundreds of years before chromosomes were discovered

What's the relevance of this? Yes, the oppressive social construct of gender has been widespread in large-scale societies since sex-based divisions of labor were formally institutionalized, well before modern science. So what? This does not mean we don't also sometimes use pronouns to refer to organisms' biological sex, or that we can't abandon the use of gendered terms. This smacks of traditionalist, reactionary claptrap.

>transphobes have to do some insane mental gymnastics to justify their bigotry!

Bigotry is intolerance. There is no intolerance of trans folk involved in the refusal to reproduce gender via the adoption of gendered nomenclature. It's patently absurd to think that avoidance of oppressive (gendered) language is oppressive. Such an attitude is reminiscent of white racists who claim that those who point out actual, structural racism are the real racists. Again, trans ideology, and the gaslighting tactics its adherents resort to, is thoroughly conservative.
_
>i don’t think gender is oppressive for everyone, i feel very much at home in my femininity and i don’t want that taken away, but if you feel like your gender is harming you, then just ask me to use gender neutral pronouns for you.

First, gender isn't merely a personal thing; rather, it is characteristically interpersonal. Remember, gender is a social construct. Just like racists (and pretty much all other anti-egalitarians, for that mater), you're committed to a traditionally individualist mindset when it comes to understanding social issues. Observes sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva in Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America:

>The frame of abstract liberalism involves using ideas associated with political liberalism (e.g., “equal opportunity,” the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy) and economic liberalism (e.g., choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters. (p. 56, italics in original, bold added)

Of course, traditional Western individualism is a conservative ideology. It functions to preserve social inequalities. Further, it is simply unscientific. Social scientists have long known that individualistic accounts of human society and behavior are bogus. As the late sociologist Allan G. Johnson would put it, such accounts miss the forest for the trees.

Second, though you may not feel personally oppressed by gender, this doesn't mean that others don't. This is what is called anecdotal evidence; you cannot make broad generalizations based on singular, personal accounts. Gender is, in fact, an oppressive social construct because it engenders social inequality and instills conformity; this, of course, results in much distress for those who do not wish to conform, via social exclusion that can even culminate in violence. Your callous disregard here for others is similar to that of selfish "I got mine" American libertarians. Again, you, and the ideology you represent, are clearly conservative.

Third, you are erroneously conflating the social construct of gender with traditionally gendered (masculine VS feminine) social presentations. I'm not suggesting that you should have your right to present yourself in a feminine manner taken away. In fact, freedom to express oneself as one sees fit is the point of gender critical efforts! The issue here is that these social presentations are formally instituted; as I explained above, this is problematic for many reasons.

Finally, as I've been saying, I'd prefer it if you refrained from the usage of gendered terms altogether. Instead of using pronouns such as "he/she" and "his/hers" to refer to people's genders, use them in reference to their biological sex. Sex-neutral terms such as "they" are fine as well.
__
>dude i fuckin wish we lived in a society where i was considered a conservative!

Hmm? Why is that, haha?

Whether society considers you conservative is not the point. For instance, mainstream American society regards liberals as leftists, even though they are not actually leftist. Society, of course, can be wrong. Since you advocate the usage of terms to refer to gender, you are, in fact, conservative, as this practice functions to preserve rather than eliminate this oppressive, anti-egalitarian social construct. Whether society sees you as conservative is irrelevant.

>no one can agree on what defines sex, not even scientists

While the particulars and nuances of biological sex are still a matter of scientific debate, researchers agree on general properties of biological sex. For example, organisms of a particular sex contain only same-sex intranuclear genetic material (XX or XY), can only produce same-sex gametes, and can only reproduce with conspecifics of the opposite sex. While there are some exceptions (e.g., children and eunuchs, who are unable to produce gametes), when it comes to normal development these properties are usually present.

Unlike biological sex, gender has no particular material substrate. It is, through and through, purely a social construct. It is not comparable to biological sex, which is a natural phenomenon that transcends human culture.

Um he makes people look bad using logic, why else would the left feel the need to tie logic in with whiteness?

https://www.amazon.com/White-Logic-Methods-Racism-Methodology/dp/0742542815