Category: Research Methods

Understand the tools of sociology—qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Explore how researchers study society and navigate ethical dilemmas in sociological research.

Illustration divided into four panels around a central compass and globe, showing four ways of seeing the social world: quantitative measurement, shared meaning and ideas, hidden structures beneath the surface, and practical tools for building solutions.

Four Ways of Knowing in Sociology: Positivism, Interpretivism, Critical Realism and Pragmatism

Posted on by

Sociology is not just about what we study, but how we think we can know anything about the social world. This explainer introduces four major epistemological approaches – positivism, interpretivism, critical realism and pragmatism – and shows how each one answers basic questions about reality, knowledge and methods. Aimed at undergraduate sociology students, it offers a clear map of the terrain and helps you understand why different writers disagree about what counts as good evidence or explanation.

Continue reading
Method and Methodology

Methodology vs Method: Understanding the Difference in Sociological Research

Posted on by

Many sociology students confuse methodology with method—but understanding the difference is essential for credible, coherent research. This guide explains both terms, shows how they connect to ontology and epistemology, and offers practical tips and examples for designing robust sociological studies.

Continue reading
Truman Show Ethics

Watching Without Seeing: The Ethics of Spectatorship in The Truman Show

Posted on by

Reflecting on The Truman Show, this article examines how spectatorship shapes ethical disengagement in contemporary society. From reality television to educational surveillance and smartphone culture, it explores the blurred boundaries between observation, performance, and complicity.

Continue reading
Anguished Doctoral Student

Reflexive but Unrecognised: Misreading Critical Research in the Doctoral Review

Posted on by

Doctoral progress reviews are framed as supportive and developmental. Yet for candidates pursuing reflexive, critical, or non-linear research, they often become spaces of misrecognition—where methodological ambiguity is pathologised, and intellectual risk is penalised. This article interrogates how audit logics, shaped by structures like the REF, reframe scholarly inquiry as compliance. It argues for a higher education culture that values complexity, temporal nuance, and epistemic diversity over bureaucratic legibility.

Continue reading