The Sociological Thinking Map

              Copyright 1994 by Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. 
              This "Map" may be reproduced so long as              
              the copyright notice remains intact and              
              the "Map" itself is unaltered.

The following should not be thought of as a series of steps. It is a 

holistic, _not_ a linear, model of sociological thinking. 

I. Five-dimensional Thinking: Purpose
  
   A. What is my purpose (or reason) as reader, viewer, or listener, for 
      
      wanting to figure something out? In other words, what do I _want_ to 
      
      discover and to comprehend (surround with my understanding)? What 
      
      kinds of questions am I going to be asking as I read, listen, or 
      
      view? I need to _dialogically_ read, listen, or view. In other words,
      
      I must be in continual internal dialogue with the writer or            
      
      speaker. This "Map" provides a framework for asking the right
      
      questions. However, just because something is not phrased like a
      
      question in the "Map" does not mean that it should not be asked.

      Use the _whole_ "Map" dialogically.

   B. What is the intended audience (mass, educated laypersons, or
     
      academic)? For example, you would not usually find references in a

      newspaper article, but you would in a scholarly journal article.

      This does not, by itself, make one better than the other, but one

      should not be judged as if it were the other.

   C. P.S. Because it was assigned is _not_ an acceptable reason or

      purpose.

II. Four-Dimensional Thinking: Rational Consistency (in Time)

    A. origin

       1. thesis

          a. Is there a specific thesis statement?

          b. If not, what is the thesis anyway?

       2. hermeneutic posture (in other words, the point of view)

       3. theory (explanatory framework)

          a. made up of assumptions (unstated; what lies between the 
          
             lines)   

       4. time context of observations and of reporting observations

       5. research design (how the evidence was collected)

    B. rational pattern (a succession of premises)

       1. empirical statements (data; tested hypotheses)

          a. Do they support the theory?

          b. empirical adequacy (sufficient evidence provided for an

             empirical statement)

          c. two types of empirical statements

             (1) factual statements (only one empirically adequate answer)

             (2) evaluative statements (possibly more than one empirically

                 adequate answer)

          d. types of empirical evidence

             (1) primary (first hand)

             (2) secondary (second hand; useful as background 
                 
                 informations for original research)

          e. quality of empirical evidence

          f. causality (cause and effect)

             (1) necessary, sufficient, and contributory conditions

             (2) criteria for causality: correlation, time order, and

                 non-spurious (genuine) correlation

          g. correlation without causality

          h. time order without causality

          i. What are the credentials of the writer or speaker?

       2. propositional statements (predictions; may be untested

          scientific hypotheses; speculations)

          a. Are they based on the theory?

          b. causality (proposed)

          c. correlation without causality (proposed)

          d. time order without causality (proposed)

       3. judgment statements (reasoned viewpoints)

          a. must be empirically adequate and based on empirical 
              
             evidence

          b. These are _not_ opinions.

       4. opinion statements (unreasoned viewpoints)

          a. are characterized by logical fallacies

          b. What are the logical fallacies?
              
          c. lack empirical evidence and rational consistency

          d. are often called "feelings," "personal preferences,"

             etc.

          e. Opinions should be questioned. Can I find empirical
                 
             evidence which either supports or contradicts them?
                 
          f. are subjective (rather than objective)

    C. conclusion

       1. logical adequacy 

           a. Do the conclusions follow logically from the premises?

       2. Are solution statements provided?

          a. What are they?

          b. Are the solutions consistent with the empirical

             evidence?

          c. Can alternative solutions be proposed based on the
 
             empirical evidence?

       3. Are there nonsolution statements?

          a. What are they?

          b. What reasons are given, if any, for making them?

       4. Are there propositional statements in the conclusion?

       5. Are there factual statements in the conclusion?

       6. Are there evaluative statements in the conclusion?

       7. Are there opinion statements in the conclusion?
                                                             
       8. Are there logical fallacies in the conclusion?

III. Three-Dimensional Thinking: Materiality and Names

     A. concepts and key terms

        1. Are there clear and consistent usages?

        2. Are they used according to what you might find in a standard

           dictionary?

        3. Are there highly specialized, even original, usages?

     B. physical space

        1. Is the location, or physical setting, described?

        2. Might things be different in another location? If so, how?

        3. What persons are described? What are they doing? How do they
           
           relate the rest of the "Map"?

        4. What physical objects, plants, or animals are present. If so,

           how to they relate to the rest of the "Map"?

     C. publication, presentation, or broadcast

        1. Should this information have been published, presented or 
           
           broadcast? 

        2. Was the information presented in the correct medium (newspaper,

           magazine, book, broadcast, film, etc.)?

        3. If not, what might have been the best medium for this 
        
           information