Meta Interpretation

Whilst ultimately changeable the 'real' has characteristics which are, in part, unreponsive to how we know about them. Realism is plural with respect to methodologies and with respect to theories, and therefore offers a good platform from which to embark on integrated mixed methods research (Wendy Olsen). In order to generate a dialectic of learning we mix approaches to get two or three viewpoints upon the things being studied.

The homology argument - in its simplest form claims no more than that social stratification and cultural stratification map on to each other very closely.
However, more elaborate versions of the homology argument exist, notably that developed by Pierre Bourdieu in his book, Distinction (1984). Status has to be seen as the symbolic aspect or dimension of the class structure, which is not itself reducible to economic relations alone.

Far too much time is spent by statisticians on statistics, when it would be interesting for them to spend more time on developing alternative interpretations.

Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation and meaning, is often confused with people feeling empathy for others. Everyday talk is not as coherent as a discourse. Texts such as dialogues are often deeply contradictory. Understanding the meaninig is universal as it is common to all knowledge, yet understanding is not the same thing in all instances. How we understand or take a person's talk varies depending on the context.

The reality could be changed according to the ways in which questions are linguistically structured to elicit increasingly complex responses and the ways that answers are interpreted. Realists argue that many things in the social world are unobservable such as relationships , power, status , etc. Yet we record our observations of things as if they are objective facts and empirical data.

People construe others' behviour through their own subjective lens of perception, and the others' behaviour, too, is framed within their own subjective and discursive frame of reference.

Social scientist can have a special ability to understand social and personal meanings. This area makes social science different from natural or physical science. Social science, where appropriate, has to be critical of common sense and stereotyped interpretation. Therefore social science must have a critical relationship with its target. To be prepared to question what people tell or give as evidence.

Empiricism, realism and constructionism are edges of a triangle of viewpoints. Each can offer a philosphical starting point for research. Nonetheless, empiricism and realism stand poles apart. Empiricists assume the world consists of facts, this is unrealistic. The real world is very complex. The data we record about reality is only a rough, partial, and incomplete record.

Naive realism is not the form of realism to which social scientists should refer nor decision makers should base their conclusions upon them. The issue of reification, of making structures appear real which were merely assumed to exist a priori, offers an area for urgent exploration.

Steroetyping does indeed make for poor analysis. Its weakness is that stereotypes are greatly oversimplified and so do not account for the complexity of the world.
Stereotypes have significant social implications, as prejudice is a serious consequence of stereotyping. The evidence to support this involved participants being given trial evidence and then being asked to judge 'guilt'. In one condition they were told the name of the defendant was Carlos Ramirez and in the other that it was Robert Johnson. “Carlos Ramirez” was found guilty more often than “Robert Johnson”,which suggests that biased information processing underpins stereotypes.

“ ... From mutual glances to avoidance of eye contact, from name dropping to name calling, from co-operation to competition - almost all aspects of behaviour can be employed to let someone know what we expect from them. All too often the result is that we will have defined the situation so that the other person has little choice but to behave as expected and thereby confirm our stereotypes of him or her.” (1)

Individuals are “hell bent” on confirming their hypotheses about other people, and will selectively search for information that corroborates their expectations. Thus compiling unbiased information is utmost important to come up with realistic analysis.

Stereotyping plays a profound role in our judgement of people and consequently on our decision making to deal with them. Understanding how we create and use our stereotypes improves our capacity to deal effectively with people whose views or behaviour is simply different and unpredictable. Those unique characteristics who do not act according to our 'common' scenarios. Our misjudgement when studying social and individual behaviour might lead to serious miscalculation in identifying agents of social changes.

Fiske (1993), argues that stereotyping and power are mutually reinforcing. She notes that dominant people pay more attention to information which confirms or legitimises their dominance and less to the information that could undermine it.

Illusory Correlation as a Basis for Steroetyping - Research by Hamilton and Gifford (1976, PA2L p.36) demonstrated how the illusory correlation could lead to prejudice. Participants were presented with statements about two groups, A and B. There were more statements for group A and so in this sense group B became the minority. There were more positive statements than negative statements for both groups but when asked to recall the statements, participants reported more negative than positive ones for group B (the “minority” group).

When we stereotype people we are actually forming a correlation between a particular member of some group and that person's behavior or character. We must be aware that these relationships may be false or illusory. Illusory correlations occur when we perceive a relationship between two events (e.g., older person and a behavior) that does not actually exist or does exist but to a lesser extent than we believe (Chapman, 1967). We can stereotype people along many dimensions. For example, we can stereotype people based on hair color (red hair, blondes), occupation, organizations they belong to (fraternities or sororities), cars they drive, ethnicity, gender, and age. The list is endless. What we are basically doing is creating relationships between one variable of the person (e.g., hair color) and another variable (their behavior). These relationships (or stereotypes) may come from our own experience, or from society or our culture. One concern with using stereotypes is that once we view a person or group in a certain way it is hard to recognize or appreciate information that goes against the stereotype.

Moscovici (1988) claims that we rely upon social representations because the world so complex that we often have to use others’ views to help us understand. Thus, social representations are considered an inherent outcome of informational influence, a type of conformity.

Yet, simplification, naive realism and relience on stereotypes, ultimately turn us blind to the choices that can Make All the Difference.



(1) Jones, Russell A., “Perceiving Other People: Stereotyping As a Process of Social Cognition”, In Miller, Arthur G. (ed.), In the Eye of the Beholder: Contemporary Issues In Stereotyping, New York: Praeger Publishers, p. 83

References:
- SOCIAL AND CULTURAL STEREOTYPING, http://www.a-levelpsychology.co.uk/resources/cdrom/pdf/revision.pdf

- Chapman, L. J. (1967). Illusory correlation in observational report. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6.

- http://www.questia.com/library/communication/language-and-linguistics/linguistics/metalinguistics.jsp

- Social stratification and cultural consumption, Oxford University, 16 March 2005, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/papers/music4.pdf

- Triangulation in social research, By Wendy Olsen, http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/triangulation.pdf

- A fair chance, Oxfam GB, http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/education/
downloads/gce_afairchance_full.pdf