This method is most effective for testing explanatory hypotheses. It allows you to establish the presence or absence of the impact of a certain factor (a certain combination of them) on the object under study, i.e. discover causal relationships.

A sociological experiment can be carried out in various forms. There are mental and natural experiments, dividing the latter into laboratory and field experiments. A thought experiment is a special technology for interpreting the information received about the object under study, which excludes the intervention of the researcher in the processes occurring in the object. It is well described by V.A. Yadov Yadov V.A. Strategy of sociological research. M., 1998. - S.349 - 367.

We will consider a field experiment, which plays the role of not only a method of collecting information, but also a special social technology, a way of conscious regulation of social processes. Conducting such experiments requires researchers to be very careful and increased responsibility. Errors in their organization and implementation not only reduce the quality sociological information, but also detrimental to practice social life and sometimes detrimental to those social systems, the natural functioning of which is violated by the ill-conceived intervention of the experimenter. An experiment should not always be done when one wants, but only when there is confidence that its positive effect will exceed the negative one, when it is carefully planned and thought out to the smallest detail. In most cases, it cannot be started without the consent of those people on whom it will have a direct impact.

AT methodological sociological experiment is based on the concept social determinism. In accordance with it, a sociologist who has adopted this method must first of all single out the significant determining and determinable factors of the phenomenon under study. These factors (called variables) are categories experimental analysis, and therefore must be systematically represented (pro-operationalized) in research program.

In the system of variables, an experimental factor is singled out, otherwise denoted by an independent variable. It is characterized by three features.

First, the experimental factor is determined by the sociologist involuntarily, but in full accordance with the research program, including the hypothesis submitted for experimental verification.

Secondly, the independent variable must be controlled by the experimenter (only the direction and intensity of the action of this variable should depend on him).

Thirdly, the direction and intensity of its action must be subject to the control of the experimenter and sociological measurements.

Along with the experimental factor (independent variable), dependent variables are determined, i.e. factors that are expected (hypothetically) to change under the influence of the independent variable.

Establishing a connection between independent and dependent variables is the subject of any sociological experiment, even the most primitive one. Experiments of a more perfect nature include in their subject, in addition to what has been said, the study of the connections between a system of variables, on the one hand, and the properties of a cognizable object not reflected in this system, on the other.

The object of a sociological experiment can be an individual, any (both quantitatively and qualitatively) group of people, social institution, the whole society. Naturally, the object of a particular experiment must correspond to the object of the study, of which this experiment is a part. The object of the experiment is specified by the concepts of "experimental group" and "control group". In the first case, it means the group that is directly affected by the independent variable (experimental factor). In the second - a group similar to the experimental (according to the parameters determined by the researcher), which does not undergo the influence of the experimental factor. Comparison of the characteristics of these two groups before and after the experiment allows a deeper assessment of the consequences of the experimental factor and ensures the purity of the experiment, as it creates the opportunity to detect the effectiveness of factors that are random for this experiment.

When comprehending the experimental method, it is important to take into account that the specific definitions of its object, subject, categories of analysis (system of variables), experimental situation (place, time and other conditions of the experiment) depend on the content of the general research program. If the experiment plays the role of an additional method in the study (and the main, say, is questioning), then along with the general research program, a special program of the experiment is developed. At the same time, the latter proceeds from the former, concretizing all the components of its theoretical and methodological part. If the experiment is used as the only method, which is extremely rare, then its program coincides with the general research program. The third option is more common, when the experiment is used as one of the main methods (in combination with either observation or some kind of survey). In such a case, as a rule, special program experiment is not done. Instead, the general research program highlights the hypothesis that will be tested experimentally, and describes the procedures for testing it (system of variables, experimental factor, situation (conditions) of the experiment, experimental and control group, experimental tools).

Quality experimental method largely depends on the control procedures, the clarity of the registration of variables and their states, as well as the maintenance of the specified experimental conditions. This implies an increased demand for the tools of its organization, conducting and processing the received data.

Some sociologists, knowing that the experiment tools include a protocol, a diary, and an observation card, do not see its differences from observation tools. In this regard, it should be noted: firstly, the possibility of including many other methodological documents- questionnaires, interviews, tests, etc.; secondly, a purely formal similarity and fundamental difference between the goals and the real content of the same-named tools different methods empirical sociology.

A distinctive feature of all tools of the experimental method, including instructions to observers, is their dominant focus on the problem of ensuring the purity of the experiment. The main difficulty of developing documents this method lies in the complexity, sometimes the impossibility of aerobatics. In this regard, the importance of their approbation in other ways increases (consultations of colleagues, borrowing their experience, brain attack, focus group discussion, etc.).

The main resulting document of the method being characterized here is the protocol of the experiment, which should reflect at least the following positions:

• 1. The name of the topic of the experiment.
• 2. Exact time and the venue.
• 3. A clear statement of the hypothesis to be tested.
• 4. The content of the experimental factor (independent variable).
• 5. Characteristics of dependent variables and their indicators.
• 6. Essential description of the experimental group.
• 7. Characteristics of the control group and the principles of its selection.
• 8. Description of the experimental situation.
• 9. Characteristics of the experimental conditions.
• 10. The course of the experiment, i.e. situation:
  • a) before the introduction of the experimental factor,
  • b) in the process of entering it,
  • c) after its introduction,
  • d) after the end of the experiment.
• 11. Evaluation of the purity of the experiment and the instruments used.
• 12. Conclusion about the reliability of the hypothesis.
• 13. Other findings.
• 14. Data on the compilers of the protocol and the degree of their agreement.
• 15. Date of signing of the protocol.

Since the experimental method is more complicated than others, many errors are made in its application. Let's name some of them:

• 1. The experiment is carried out to obtain information that can be obtained in other, simpler ways.
• 2. An included or standardized non-included observation is given as an experiment.
• 3. No organic connection the experiment with the purpose, objectives and hypotheses of the study.
• 4. There is an ambiguity or other significant significant inaccuracy in the formulation of the hypothesis submitted for experimental verification.
• 5. The theoretical system of variables is built incorrectly, causes and effects are confused.
• 6. The experimental factor (independent variable) was chosen arbitrarily, without taking into account the fact that it should play the role of a determinant and be controlled by the researcher.
• 7. The independent and dependent variables did not find adequate expression in empirical indicators.
• 8. The impact on the dependent variables of factors that are not included in the independent variable is underestimated.
• 9. The control group is not an analogue of the experimental group in terms of parameters essential for the study.
• 10. The instrumentation of the experiment is aimed only at fixing certain data (like an observation instrument), and not at maintaining the purity of the experiment.
• 11 The conclusions of the experimenters are adjusted (adjusted) to the hypothesis without sufficient grounds.
• 12. The experiment is carried out on people who do not want it and resist it.
• 13. The practical result of the experiment was not a solution social problem, but aggravation of its unresolved.

The concept of sociological experiment

Definition 1

sociological experiment is a way to obtain information about quantitative and qualitative changes in activities and behavior social object(individual, group, community) under the influence of certain factors, under specially created conditions, are strictly controlled by the experimenter.

The features of the sociological experiment are the following:

• it always provides for a certain intervention of the experimenter during the experiment carried out by him;
• provides a specific answer to those of interest to the researcher, especially about the cause-and-effect relationships of the phenomenon under study, the process, etc.;
• makes it possible to test research hypotheses;
• has a clearly defined applied aspect, since it gives valuable information for making managerial decisions at various levels.

Types of sociological experiments

Distinguish the following types sociological experiments:

According to the method of conducting - full-scale and imaginary. In a natural experiment, the independent variable is natural and manifests itself outside the experimenter's actions. Its use in sociology is limited by the nature of the social objects that people are, so the intervention of the experimenter should be minimal. Most sociological field experiments are conducted in small groups.

The thought experiment, in which a real research situation is created using a mental model, is more common. It is present in every sociological study where methods are applied. statistical analysis. important place it takes when modeling social processes on a computer. A thought experiment allows you to more accurately determine the strategy of a natural experiment. According to the specifics of the task - research and applied.

A research experiment tests a hypothesis containing new data scientific nature, and in the course of practical - information is obtained in order to develop practical advice or correction of management decisions in a particular area.

By the nature of the experimental situation - field and laboratory. In the first case, the experimental group is in the natural conditions of its usual functioning, in the second, the experimental group is artificially formed;

1. According to the rational sequence, the proofs of research hypotheses are linear and parallel.

   • The same group is subjected to linear analysis, which simultaneously acts as a control group (its initial state is examined, all characteristics of the object are recorded) and as an experimental group (the same characteristics are examined after a change in operating conditions).
   • A parallel experiment involves the creation of two groups that are identical in all characteristics. During this experiment, one group - experimental - is the object of influence (functioning conditions or certain characteristics change), the other - control - operates under conditions that remain unchanged during the experiment. The proof of hypotheses in such an experiment is based on a comparison of the state of these groups, during which their characteristics are compared and a conclusion is made about the causes, direction and magnitude of the changes that took place during the experiment.

Preparation and conduct of the experiment

The preparation and conduct of the experiment involves several consecutive, logically interrelated stages:

1. definition problem situation, which is supposed to be investigated with the help of a sociological experiment;
2. determination of the purpose, object and subject of the experiment;
3. definition of tasks and formulation of research hypotheses;
4. choice of indicators and method for monitoring the progress of the experiment;
5. determination of the object (group) for the experiment;
6. fixation of all studied characteristics of the object
7. determination of the experimental conditions and creation of an experimental situation;
8. carrying out measurements of the state of the object according to its control characteristics in accordance with the planned type of experiment;
9. analysis of the results obtained, determination of the direction, magnitude and stability of changes in the characteristics to be studied.

hawthorne experiment

Remark 1

The most famous experiment in sociology is the so-called Hawthorne experiment, which was carried out in the 20-30s. of the last century by professor of industrial sociology E. Mayo at the enterprises of the electrical company - Western Electric. This experiment covered about 20 thousand workers and showed that:

1. there is no mechanical relationship between one variable in working conditions (lighting, working regime, payment system, etc.) and labor productivity;
2. the growth of labor productivity is significantly influenced by such factors as the group atmosphere, interpersonal communication, the subjective attitude of employees to work, the identification of the interests of employees with the interests of the company, the presence of respect, sympathy between employees and company managers;
3. there are hidden (latent) factors (informal norms, rules and requirements of workers) that have a great impact on labor productivity. The conceptual understanding of the experiment allowed E. Mayo to conclude that not only material factors, as was thought before the experiment, but social and psychological factors were of decisive importance for increasing labor productivity and forming relationships in labor structures.

sociological experiment- a method of sociological research, which allows obtaining information about the quantitative and qualitative changes in the performance indicators of the social object under study as a result of the impact on it of new factors introduced or modified by the experimenter and controlled (managed) by him.

The sociological experiment should not be equated with social experiment. The concept of social experiment is used, as a rule, in more broad sense, i.e. like any experiment in society and the social sciences, for example, in social psychology. The term "sociological experiment" is used only in sociology, taking into account the specifics of its objects and methods.

In the experiment, hypotheses about the causal relationships of the studied phenomena, processes and events are usually tested. Consequently, the peculiarity of the experiment as a method of collecting sociological information is that its implementation requires the development of a hypothesis about a causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables. An exception may be situations when an experiment is carried out to achieve an effect in practical-transformative activity through an experimental search. effective techniques controls: in this case cognitive function becomes irrelevant.

The hypothesis being tested during the experiment must satisfy a number of requirements. Here we list the requirements for V. A. Yadov.

• 1. A hypothesis should not contain concepts that have not received an empirical interpretation, otherwise it cannot be considered testable.
• 2. It should not contradict previously established scientific facts.
• 3. The hypothesis should be simple and should not contain too many assumptions and restrictions.
• 4. Particularly significant are the hypotheses that are applicable to more a wide range phenomena than the area directly affected by the study. For example, when investigating a hypothesis about the factors that determine the productivity of workers, it is important to know that there are no facts that would make this hypothesis inapplicable to agricultural or engineering work.
• 5. The hypothesis must be fundamentally verifiable when given level theoretical knowledge, methodological equipment and practical possibilities of research. An example of a hypothesis that is unsuccessful from this point of view: "The less support is given to political institutions in a country, the more unstable the stability of its political system is." This hypothesis is difficult to refute because both concepts are similar. In order to carry out the required verification, it is necessary to carry out independent measurements support political institutions and stability of the political system. Otherwise, both phenomena will be measured using the same indicators, and such a hypothesis can neither be confirmed nor refuted.
• 6. In the formulation of the hypothesis, one should indicate the method of verification in this study.

The general logic of experiment in sociology is borrowed from general psychology and social psychology, where small (10–15 people) groups are used as a model, which are the object of an experimental situation. The conclusions based on the results of the experiment in such groups are considered representative of this and other small groups similar in composition, but are not extrapolated to the general population, i.e. into groups of much larger numerical strength. In contrast, in applied sociology, the experimental model must serve as the basis for conclusions that can be extended to mass phenomena. The logic is to select an experimental group (or groups) and place it in an unusual experimental situation (under the influence of a certain factor), to trace the direction, extent and stability of changes in characteristics, called control ones. In this sense, the experiment is a "closed system", the elements of which begin to interact according to the "scenario" written by the researcher.

At formation experiments must comply with a number of requirements.

• 1. The characteristics that are most important from the point of view of the problem under study are selected as control ones.
• 2. The change in the control characteristics should depend on those characteristics of the experimental group or the experimental environment that are introduced or changed by the researcher. Such features are called factorial. Characteristics excluded from the experimental study are called neutral. It is necessary that changes in the neutral characteristics are not reflected in the control ones.
• 3. The course of the experiment should not be affected by those phenomena that do not belong to the experimental situation, but are potentially capable of changing it.

Training and conducting The experiment involves solving a number of questions.

• 1. Determining the purpose of the experiment.
• 2. Selection of the object used as the experimental as well as the control group(s).
• 3. Identification of the subject of the experiment (that side of the object that is directly subject to study).
• 4. Choice of control, factor and neutral features.
• 5. Determining the conditions of the experiment and creating an experimental situation.
• 6. Formulation of hypotheses and definition of tasks.
• 7. Choice of indicators and method for monitoring the course of the experiment.
• 8. Determining the method of fixing the results.
• 9. Choice of criterion of efficiency of experiment.

Example

To emphasize the complexity of conducting sociological experiments, as well as the responsibility with which it is required to approach them, we will give a small example when a factor that seems to have little connection with the experiment can distort the results. Suppose, in an experimental study of the influence of management style in an IT company on the efficiency of programmers, the management policy and the adopted methodology will act as factor characteristics. software development, and as control - various metrics of labor productivity and quality of the developed programs. What the owner of the car is doing in the garage near the office building seems to be a completely irrelevant question. But if he turns on loud music for several hours, and it will be perfectly audible in the working room of programmers, then it can "cheer up" someone, and interfere with someone's work.

Main dignity sociological experiment the following.

• 1. Opportunity to study causal relationships between events.
• 2. High objectivity, since the results of the experiment are the events that actually occurred.
• 3. The possibility of creating and reproducing conditions that are difficult to achieve during observation.

No matter how great opportunities a sociological experiment sometimes opens up, it is characterized by a number of shortcomings that should be remembered.

• 1. The statement about the strength and nature of the influence of a particular independent variable on the dependent variable has only a probabilistic character.
• 2. It is not always possible to apply the results of the experiment in other environmental conditions.
• 3. It is difficult to level the influence of extraneous factors.
• 4. Significant time and financial costs are often possible. For example, the latter are typical for situations where paid volunteers participate in the experiment.

An experiment in sociological research is carried out relatively rarely, since its use for collecting sociological information is associated with considerable difficulties. However, the return on it can be quite high. The very process of organizing and implementing an experiment, regardless of its results, allows you to take a fresh look at many complex social phenomena and processes, to avoid possible errors and reduce operational costs.

• Yadov V. A. Decree. op. pp. 61–63.
• Gorshkov M. K., Sheregi F. E. Cit. op. S. 147.

One of the most effective and at the same time the most time-consuming methods of collecting sociological information is experiment. It allows you to get very unique information, which is impossible to obtain by other methods.

As a kind of in-depth, analytical sociological research and at the same time a method of collecting information about the factors affecting the state of certain social phenomena and processes, as well as the degree and results of this impact, the experiment is of great scientific and practical value.

Experiment- this is “a method of obtaining information about the studied social object by influencing it with some managed and controlled factors (variables). It requires a hypothesis about the relationship of its various characteristics "The purpose of any experiment is to test hypotheses about the causal relationship between phenomena: the researcher creates or seeks a certain situation, activates a hypothetical cause and observes changes in the natural course of events, fixes their compliance or inconsistency with assumptions, hypotheses . Experiment is also the most reliable means of solving many problems. practical tasks related to the evaluation of the effectiveness of social and political programs.

The experimental proof of the hypothesis is based on logical circuits developed by J. S. Mill. In his book "System of Logic", first published in 1843, Mill formulated 4 methods of proof causation: method of single difference, concomitant changes, single similarity, residuals.

AT social sciences The method of single difference is most often used, which consists in comparing two complex phenomena (systems, processes) that differ only in that one of them has a hypothetical cause, while the other does not.

A modification of this system of proof is the scheme of concomitant changes, which differs from the above only in that the action of the independent variable is performed many times and with different intensity, which should lead to corresponding changes in the dependent variable.

The logic of the scheme of the only similarity is different - the two compared systems differ in all parameters, except for the experimental variables. In the study of social phenomena, this scheme is almost never used, because to prove that two systems differ in everything except the action of the experimental factor is even more difficult than to prove that they are similar in everything except this.

Not applicable in social studies is also the method of residuals, which is based on already proven causal relationships between variables.

An interesting fact is that J. S. Mill himself, followed by O. Comte, E. Durkheim, M. Weber and others denied the possibility of using the experimental method in the study of social phenomena. The problem is that social phenomena are too complex and changeable for this, it is impossible to clearly identify the effects of the impact of one specific factor, as well as an unambiguous interpretation of the behavior of a person or a social community.

Complexity, multifactorial and multi-layered social processes; difficulty, often the impossibility of their formalization and quantitative description; holistic, systemic character dependencies; the mediation of external influences through the human psyche, including through a predisposition to a certain attitude to behavior - all this makes it difficult to empirically identify and prove causal dependencies. A number of social processes have been little studied to put forward explanatory hypotheses. And in their presence, a real social experiment is often impossible for political, economic, ethical and other reasons. Most important social situations cannot be created at the request of the researcher, just as in existing situations, causal relationships cannot be experimentally verified, the implementation of which could lead to undesirable consequences. Many problems arise in connection with the representativeness of experiments conducted with a certain specific group of people in certain specific conditions. It is very difficult to establish the boundaries of the possible distribution of the results of the experiment to other groups and conditions, especially when the subjects know that there is an experiment and their reactions are recorded. Quite complex and troublesome are organizational problems associated with the experiment.

Experiment in the form in which it is applied in natural sciences cannot be applied to the social sciences. In sociology general logic experiment consists in choosing an experimental group (or groups) and placing it in an unusual experimental situation (under the influence of a certain factor), to trace the direction, magnitude and stability of the change in characteristics, called control. In this sense, the experiment is something like closed system, the elements of which begin to interact according to the "scenario" written by the researcher.

When designing an experiment, three requirements must be met. Firstly, as control characteristics are chosen, the most important with

point of view of the problem under study. Secondly, the change in the control characteristics should depend on those characteristics of the experimental group (or the experimental environment) that are introduced or changed by the researcher himself. Such features are called factorial. Characteristics "not participating" in the experiment are called neutral. Their "fate" in the course of the experiment can develop in different ways. In some cases, they can change without "extraneous" influence (then they get the name variables), in others - to remain unchanged (then they are called permanent). For end results both have no experiment of great importance. The main thing is that changes in the neutral characteristics should not be reflected in the control ones. And thirdly, the course of the experiment should not be influenced by those phenomena that do not belong to the experimental situation, but are potentially capable of changing it.

These conditions actualize the problem of choosing an experimental group.

Specialists identify several types of experiment and methods for selecting experimental groups.

According to the nature of the object and subject of research, sociological, economic (economic), legal, socio-psychological, pedagogical, psychological experiments are distinguished. In this section, we are primarily interested in sociological experiments.

According to the logical structure of proving hypotheses, a distinction is made between a linear and a parallel experiment.

In a linear experiment, the same group is analyzed, which is and control(its original state), and experimental(its state after changing one or more characteristics). That is, even before the start of the experiment, the control, factorial and neutral characteristics of the object are clearly fixed. After that, the factor characteristics of the group (or the conditions of cc functioning) change, and after a certain, predetermined period, the state of the object is again measured by its control characteristics.

It is very important that in the process of a linear experiment the influence of interfering factors on the object of analysis be excluded.

In a parallel experiment, two groups simultaneously participate: control and experimental. Their composition should be identical in all control, as well as in neutral characteristics that can affect the outcome of the experiment (first of all, these are socio-demographic characteristics). The characteristics of the control group remain constant throughout the entire period of the experiment, while those of the experimental group change. Based on the results of the experiment, the control characteristics of the two groups are compared and a conclusion is made about the causes and magnitude of the changes that have occurred.

For a successful experiment big role plays correct selection its members. In applied sociology, three methods are used: pairwise selection, structural identification, and random selection.

All three methods have one general requirement: they must guarantee the legitimacy of the distribution of the results of the experiment to the object, the change in the characteristics (or operating conditions) of which is envisaged in the future. This object acts as a general population from which the experimental group is selected. In addition, the use of an appropriate method for selecting a group (groups) is to some extent predetermined by the model of the planned experiment.

Pairwise selection method. It is used predominantly in a parallel experiment. Its essence is as follows. From population two groups are selected so that they are identical in neutral and control, but differ in factor characteristics. For both groups, there are same conditions, and after some time the effect of the experiment is measured by fixing and comparing the parameters of the control signs in both groups.

Both in linear and parallel experiments, the structural identification method can be used. In this case, in a linear experiment, the group is selected so that it is a micromodel of the general population in terms of neutral and control characteristics. Such selection can be carried out according to the principle of quota sampling. In turn, in a parallel experiment, the structures of the experimental and control groups are aligned according to the same characteristics. For example, the size of two groups is 50 and 90 people, respectively. It is known that in the first experimental group 70% of the group members (35 people) have secondary education, and 30% (15 people) have higher education. In the second (control) group, their share is equal - 50% each (45 people each). Suppose that in order to create an experimental situation, we need to bring the structure of the control group in line with the structure of the experimental group according to the characteristic “level of education”. Making simple arithmetic calculations, we find that the control group should include 60 people: 42 (70%) with secondary education and 18 (30%) with higher education.

The random selection method is identical to the previously considered methods of random sampling with a predetermined size. As a rule, it is used in field experiments with a large (up to several hundred) number of experimental groups.

According to the method of conducting, real and thought experiments are distinguished. AT real experiment explanatory hypotheses are tested by systematic management of conditions social activities. In thought experiments, hypotheses are tested real phenomena and information about them.

According to the specifics of the task, theoretical and applied experiments are distinguished. The first are aimed at acquiring new scientific knowledge, methodological information, and the second - to obtain a practical effect.

Depending on the orientation to the past or the future, projective and retrospective experiments are distinguished. Projective experiments are directed to the future: the researcher projects the manifestations of the intended consequences by putting hypothetical causes into operation. how special kind projective social experiments, one can single out a creative experiment aimed at testing a social project, fundamentally new management decisions. A real experiment is always projective, while a mental one is usually retrospective, directed to the past: the researcher manipulates information about past events, tries to test hypotheses about the causes that caused the existing effects. thought experiments can also be projective if they are used to predict future events and if their conclusions are verified by real experiments and other research methods.

According to the nature of the experimental situation, experiments are divided into field and laboratory. In a field experiment, an object (group) is in the natural conditions of its functioning (for example, production team). At the same time, group members may or may not be aware that they are participating in the experiment. The appropriate decision in each case depends on how much knowledge can affect the course of the experiment.

In a laboratory experiment, the situation, and often the groups themselves, are formed artificially. Therefore, group members are usually aware of the experiment.

Both in the field and in the laboratory experiment as additional methods information gathering can be successfully used survey and observation. Their results give reason to the researcher to decide whether to intervene in the course of the experiment or to observe it until complete completion without intervention.

Preparation and conduct of the experiment involves consistent solution a number of questions:

• 1) determination of the purpose of the experiment;
• 2) the choice of the object (objects) used as an experimental, as well as a control group (groups);
• 3) selection of the subject of the experiment;
• 4) choice of control, factor and neutral features;
• 5) determination of the experimental conditions and creation of an experimental situation;
• 6) formulation of hypotheses and definition of tasks;
• 7) the choice of indicators and a method for monitoring the course of the experiment;
• 8) determination of the method of fixing the results;
• 9) selection of a criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the experiment ".

Based on the identified variables and material, social, and temporal possibilities for conducting research, an experiment plan is developed. In social research, 4 plans are most often used: 1) "before-after" experiment without a control group; 2) experiment "before-after" with the control group; 3) experiment "only after" with the control group;

4) experiment "allegedly before - after" with the control group.

The “before-after” experiment without a control group belongs, according to the logic of proving the hypothesis, to sequential experiments. The researcher creates or searches for an experimental situation before the introduction of the experimental factor, and after its influence, the features of interest to the experimenter are measured - an independent variable and related factors, characteristics of the situation. The hypothesis is tested by comparing the values ​​of the dependent variable before and after exposure to the experimental factor.

The “before-after” plan with the control group is parallel in the logic of proving the hypothesis. It involves the formation or search for two groups equal in their main indicators, in one of which (experimental) an experimental factor is put into action, and in the other (control group) it is not. In both groups, measurements of the traits of interest to the researcher are made before and after the action of the experimental factor. The hypothesis is considered proven if there were changes in the dependent variable in the experimental group, and no changes were observed in the control group.

In an "after-only" experiment with a control group, there are no problems associated with pre-measuring variables ("first-measure efficiency"). The values ​​of the variables are fixed only after the influence of the experimental factor. The hypothesis is tested by comparing the values ​​of the dependent variable in the experimental and control groups.

There are a number of experimental designs where by combining measurements "before" and "after" in equalized groups, they try to reduce Negative influence preliminary measurement, on the one hand, and to compensate for the lack of data on the position before the impact of the experimental factor, on the other.

Such experimental plans include "supposedly before - after" with the control group. This plan is characterized by the fact that in both groups only one measurement is made, but on different stages experiment - in the experimental group - before its impact. The hypothesis is tested by comparing the results of these measurements, i.e. the experimental and control groups are essentially treated as one, so that it is possible to measure the initial position in one group and the final position in the other, and yet consider the difference in these states as the result of an experimental factor.

All the experimental plans described above are single-factor (single-variant). A multi-factor (multi-variant) plan involves the impact of two, three or even more experimental factors. A multivariate plan makes it possible to reveal the interaction of experimental factors.

The social experiment is one of the effective techniques for studying control systems. Its significance lies in the fact that it helps to reveal social processes in all their complexity and diversity, gives the governing bodies reliable information, allowing you to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular control system. In this connection, let us mention the Hawthorne Experiments (1927-1932). Studying influence various factors(conditions and organization of work, wages, interpersonal relationships and leadership style) to increase labor productivity by industrial enterprise, the organizer of the experiment, E. Mayo, concluded that the human factor plays a special role in the production. The generalization of empirical data allowed E. Mayo to create a social philosophy of management.

Social experiments play a special role in management. The need for an experiment arises when, in order to make managerial decisions, conventional sources there is not enough information when it is difficult to foresee all parties in advance practical application new solution. During the social experiment, the project management decision acquires concreteness and purposefulness, which makes it possible to judge the degree of its social significance.

In the process of developing a managerial decision, there can always be various options, from which it is necessary to choose the most effective one for specific situation. Therefore, the social experiment acts as a means of searching for specific forms of the best solution to the tasks. The experiment makes it possible to practically test various options management decisions and, based on the analysis and synthesis of information about the functioning of the tested options, select the most effective of them for the correct management act.

The social experiment is scientific laboratory, which can be used for the purpose scientific forecasting further progress and development of management decisions. With the help of a social experiment, the subject of management has the opportunity to solve not only urgent and on the agenda today problems, but also to anticipate the course of events. Therefore, the experiment is a specific form of social forecasting. It often generates new hypotheses that can be used for subsequent experiments. In other words, first-order experiments can become the starting point for second-order, third-order experiments, and so on. order, which will help to obtain more extensive information about the underlying processes of social life and contribute to the development and adoption of optimal management decisions.

We have considered various methods of collecting sociological information and want to draw the attention of readers to the problem of choosing research methods.

Information collection methods have different cognitive capabilities, advantages and disadvantages.

First, none of the methods of data collection is universal in relation to the subject of sociological research. It is the specificity of the reflection of objective reality in the sources of information that requires the sociologist to apply complex various methods for the development of the most diverse sources of information and, ultimately, for the most complete comprehension of the essential properties of the subject being studied. At the same time, when conducting a “monomethodological” research, a sociologist must observe the boundaries of the interpretation of the data obtained, without exceeding the cognitive capabilities of the method used and the source of information with its inherent features of reflecting objective reality.

We encounter a similar mistake in sociological reports, conclusions and recommendations, when we are talking about the interpretation of the survey data, which characterize the reflection of the studied reality in the minds of the respondents, as an unambiguous correspondence to this reality itself. This problem is especially exacerbated in sociological research aimed at studying socially disapproved types of activity or complex social phenomena associated with ordinary consciousness by complex mediated reflection mechanisms.

Secondly, the specificity of the reflection of the studied reality in the sources of information gives rise to many of its technical varieties within the framework of each of the main methods. At the same time, each technical version of the method is not indifferent to its cognitive capabilities, has its pros and cons that affect the quality of the information received, and the economic and organizational costs of the study.

On the one hand, the a priori (initial) knowledge of a sociologist about the cognitive capabilities of each of the data collection methods, on the other hand, a priori knowledge about the subject of research, the features of a particular research situation, serve as the basis for determining the methodological strategy of research. The transition from the theoretical premises of the study to the stage of collecting empirical information is realized in methodological solutions various levels.

• 1. At the level of the methodological strategy of the study as a whole, decisions are made on the necessary and sufficient number of methods, the cognitive capabilities of which in the aggregate are assessed as adequate to the goals of the study and the characteristics of the research situation.
• 2. At the level of a separate method, decisions are made on the use of such technical and organizational varieties of the method, the cognitive capabilities of which are assessed as adequate to particular cognitive tasks solved using this method.
• 3. At the level of a separate research instrument (questionnaire, plan, interview, instructions or interviewer's report, block of questions, separate question, coding card, etc.), decisions are made on the adequacy of particular procedures for identifying, changing, registering fragments of the reality under study for cognitive tasks.

Thus, data collection methods are not just a conglomeration of tools that can be used (or not used) arbitrarily by the researcher, depending on organizational resources and personal preferences. The choice of data collection methods is dictated by the objective nature of the studied social phenomena, the specificity of their properties reflection in potential sources of the information sought. At the same time, the choice of data collection methods rather rigidly sets the boundaries of the meaningful interpretation of the empirical information received.

Gorshkov M. K. Sheregi F. E. Applied sociology. M., 2003. S. 152.

Yadov V. A. Strategy of sociological research. M, 1999 S. 358-361.

Social Management: Textbook / Ed. D. V. Gross. M.: CJSC "Business School "Intel - Synthesis", Academy of Labor and social relations, 2000. S. 183-184.

Methods of collecting information in sociological research. Book. 1. / Ans. ed. V. G. Andreenkov, O. M. Maslova. M., 1990.S. 41-42.

social experiment

(lat. experimentum - test, experience) - method scientific research and an element in the management of social phenomena and processes; is carried out in the form of a controlled impact on these phenomena and processes and is aimed at finding opportunities to achieve the planned new results.

S. e. represents an important means of improving the forms of management social life, forms of its organization in accordance with the objective laws of its development; to a certain extent, it allows, before embarking on various kinds of innovations, to first identify the measure of their expediency and effectiveness in given conditions. The experiment helps to discover new opportunities and reserves for increasing labor productivity, developing social relations, increasing the activity of workers, and their participation in the management of production. S.'s scheme e. usually next. First, the target setting is formulated (and the hypothesis tested in the experiment), for example, the impact of the wage system and the distribution of bonuses depending on the final results of production (harvested, traded and sold products this enterprise, repair of buses with a warranty period for their operation on the line, etc.) on the growth of labor productivity, on the attitude to work. Then the experimental and control (serving for comparison) objects are searched for, those parameters that are significant for the final result (for example, the level technical equipment, planned indicators, etc.), which should be constant during the experiment, the terms are determined, periodic measurements of experimental variables are carried out, etc. Before the experiment, a preliminary clarification by public organizations of its goals and conditions is necessary. Since S. e. is woven into the real, ordinary activities of people, the natural limits of its applicability are the inadmissibility of causing a loss if the hypothesis is false, especially moral damage by its participants. The purpose of the experiment is not only a production effect, but also educational, increasing the social activity of its participants. Experiments of this type often occur during the preparation and implementation of social development plans. labor collectives(see) and are inextricably linked with the active creative activity workers. They are possible only in the conditions of a socialist society, where the means of production and government are in the hands of the people, led by the Communist Party. The social experimentation of such predecessors of scientific communism as Owen, Fourier was utopian, did not justify itself for the reason that it was based on attempts to build islands of socialist production relations within the framework of an antagonistic class society in order to change this society under the influence of an example (see ;).

S. e. how the method of scientific research differs from the experiment described above as an element in management social processes the nature of problem solving and the fact that the subject experimental activities here is the experimental scientist. The subjects in this case should not know what is being carried out in their environment. pilot study, since this knowledge itself can affect the result. Scientific social experiments are actively carried out in pedagogy, social psychology and other social sciences. Their scope is usually limited. small group, their goal is to study the mechanisms, factors influencing the formation of the personality and its upbringing in the team.

AT modern conditions When in the socialist countries there are increased requirements for the level of , the practice of social experimentation is expanding. All this makes it necessary to further improve the methods of S. e., the forms of its implementation. One of the promising methods is an experiment on a model that precedes a real experiment with the social object itself and allows short terms and without prejudice to the object, study and evaluate various options for changing it. The most effective in this case is the human-machine modeling system, in which one part of the object's parameters is formalized, and the other part remains unformalized and is presented in the form of concepts, scenarios, value orientations of a person interacting with the formal part in an interactive mode. Model experiments make it possible to more accurately determine the strategy of a real experiment, but cannot replace it. Only an experiment on the object itself allows one to obtain reliable knowledge about the effectiveness of the hypotheses being tested.

Scientific Communism: Dictionary. - M.: Politizdat. Alexandrov V. V., Amvrosov A. A., Anufriev E. A. and others; Ed. A. M. Rumyantseva. 1983 .

See what "Social experiment" is in other dictionaries:

social experiment- Social experiment is a method of studying social phenomena and processes, carried out by observing the change in a social object under the influence of factors that control and direct its development. Social experiment ... ... Wikipedia

social experiment- (see Social experiment) ... human ecology

SOCIAL EXPERIMENT- a research technique in the social sciences, consisting in the analysis general patterns of the object under study (individual, collective, group) by creating specific conditions and factors of its functioning ... Professional education. Vocabulary

Experiment- (from lat. experimentum test, experience) a method of cognition, with the help of which phenomena of reality are studied under controlled and controlled conditions. Differing from observation (See Observation) by active operation of the object under study, E. ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

EXPERIMENT IN SOCIOLOGY- method of collection and analysis of empiric. data, aimed at testing hypotheses regarding causal relationships between phenomena. Usually (in a real experiment) this check is made by the experimenter intervening in the natural course of events: he ... ... Russian sociological encyclopedia

EXPERIMENT SOCIAL- scientific method. knowledge and optimization of social systems, which is realized through the observation of their behavior in controlled and managed conditions. E. s. performs two functions simultaneously: research and management, and therefore belongs to ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

See social experiment... Scientific Communism: Dictionary

EXPERIMENT- (from lat. experimentum test, experience), a method of cognition, with the help of which, under controlled and controlled conditions, the phenomena of reality are investigated. E. is carried out on the basis of a theory that determines the formulation of problems and its interpretation ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Dosadi experiment- The Dosadi Experiment

EXPERIMENT SOCIAL- English. experiment, social; German Experiment, sociales. The method of studying social. phenomena and processes, carried out by monitoring changes in social. object under the influence of factors that control and direct its development in accordance with ... ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

Books

• FREEDOM OF SPEECH AGAINST FEAR AND humiliation. LIVE SOCIAL EXPERIMENT AND THE FIRST EMOTION MAP OF UKRAINE, Savik Shuster. Person of the year, most handsome man Ukraine, Honored Journalist of Ukraine, the most popular TV presenter, Savik Shuster has dozens of high-profile epithets and titles. Its programs and projects, wherever...