1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 48, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 48, 2022

The Role of Doubt in Conceiving Research: Reflections from a Career Shaped by a Dissertation

Abstract

The doctoral dissertation often shapes the career that follows it, influencing both opportunities encountered and research conducted. This article describes the ways this has been true for me and then argues that, given the dissertation's importance, graduate programs do not focus sufficiently on strategies for conceiving research. As a result, many students flounder at the dissertation proposal stage. Drawing on the role of doubt in my career and in science more generally, I propose changes in doctoral programs to reduce the problem.

Keyword(s): autobiography, contingent valuation, doctoral education, failure, graduate training, measurement error, nonresponse error, questionnaire evaluation, sociology of science, survey methodology
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-080321-073017
2022-07-29
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/48/1/annurev-soc-080321-073017.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-080321-073017&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abraham KG, Helms S, Presser S. 2009. How social processes distort measurement: the impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in the United States. Am. J. Sociol. 114:1129–65
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrow JD. 1998. Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  3. Becker HS. 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You Are Doing It Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  4. Bentley DMR. 2004. The Confederation Group of Canadian Poets, 1880–1897 Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press
  5. Berent MK, Krosnick JA, Lupia A. 2016. Measuring voter registration and turnout in surveys. Public Opin. Q. 64:413–42
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bishop RC, Boyle KJ, Carson RT, Chapman D, Hanemann WM et al. 2017. Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: the BP oil spill. Science 356:253–54
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohle B 1967. The Home Book of American Quotations New York: Dodd Mead
  8. Booth WC, Colomb GC, Williams JC, Bizup J, Fitzgerald WT. 2016. The Craft of Research Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 4th ed..
  9. Campbell S. 2013. Both Hands: A Life of Lorne Pierce of Ryerson Press Montreal and Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press
  10. Cappon J. 1929. Bliss Carman's beginnings. Queen's Q. 36:637–65
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Carson RT, Conaway MB, Hanemann WM, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC, Presser S. 2004. Valuing Oil Spill Prevention Philadelphia: Kluwer
  12. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC et al. 1997. Temporal reliability of estimates from contingent valuation. Land Econ 73:151–63
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Carson RT, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Krosnick JA, Mitchell RC et al. 1998. Referendum design and contingent valuation. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80:484–87
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Carson RT, Mitchell RC, Hanemann WM, Kopp RJ, Presser S, Ruud P 2003. Contingent valuation and lost passive use: damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environ. Resour. Econ. 25:257–86
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang AC, Li P. 2015. Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say “Usually not.” Work. Pap., Finance Econ. Discuss. Ser. 2015–083, Federal Reserve Syst. Washington, DC:
  16. Collins PH. 1986. Learning from the outsider within: the sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Soc. Problems 33:S14–32
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Conant JB. 1951. Science and Common Sense New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  18. Connell RW. 1985. How to supervise a PhD. Vestes Aust. Univ. Rev. 28:238–41
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Converse JM. 1987. Survey Research in the United States: Roots and Emergence 1890–1960 Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Converse JM, Presser S. 1986. Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
  21. Crittenden KS, Wiley MG. 1980. Causal attribution and behavioral response to failure. Soc. Psychol. Q. 43:353–58
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E 2000. Effects of response rate changes on the Index of Consumer Sentiment. Public Opin. Q. 64:413–28
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E 2005. Changes in telephone nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin. Q. 69:87–98
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Drucker PF. 1974. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
  25. Elgar FJ. 2003. Ph.D. completion in Canadian universities: final report Rep., Grad. Stud. Assoc. Can. and Dalhousie Univ. Halifax, NS:
  26. Eliot TS. 1971. The Complete Poems and Plays New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
  27. Feynman RP. 1998. The Meaning of It All Boston: Addison Wesley
  28. Firestein S. 2012. Ignorance: How It Drives Science Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  29. Firestein S. 2016. Failure: Why Science is So Successful Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  30. Fleck L. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact transl. F Bradley, TJ Trenn Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  31. Fourcade M. 2011. Cents and sensibility: economic valuation and the nature of “nature. .” Am. J. Sociol. 116:1721–77
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Freese J, Peterson D. 2017. Replication in social science. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:147–65
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Glassner B, Hertz R, eds. 2003. Our Studies, Ourselves Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  34. Groves RM, Singer E, Corning A. 2000. Leverage-salience theory of survey participation. Public Opin. Q. 64:299–308
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gustafsson K, Hagstrom L. 2018. What is the point? Teaching graduate students how to construct political science research puzzles. Eur. Political Sci. 17:634–48
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hadaway K, Marler P, Chaves M. 1993. What the polls don't show: a closer look at U.S. church attendance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:741–52
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hammond PE 1964. Sociologists at Work New York: Basic
  38. Harding S. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  39. Hauser RM. 2017. A life in sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:1–18
     [Google Scholar]
  40. High. Educ. Funding Counc. Engl. 2005. PhD research degrees: entry and completion Issues Pap., High. Educ. Funding Counc. Engl. Bristol, UK:
  41. Hunter MA 2018. The New Black Sociologists: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives London: Routledge
  42. Hustvedt S. 2016. A Woman Looking at Men Looking at Women: Essays on Art, Sex, and the Mind New York: Simon and Schuster
  43. Ioannidis JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Med 2:696–701
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Jaynes ET 1993. A backward look into the future. Physics and Probability: Essays in Honor of Edwin T. Jaynes WT Grandy Jr., PW Milonni 261–76 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kafka AC. 2018. In the lab, failure is part of the job description. Chronicle of Higher Education June 15. https://www.chronicle.com/article/in-the-lab-failure-is-part-of-the-job-description/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves RM, Presser S. 2000. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin. Q. 64:125–48
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Khan S, Fisher DR, eds. 2014. The Practice of Research: How Social Scientists Answer Their Questions Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  48. Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R 2008. Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin. Q. 72:847–65
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Light R. 2019. Book review. Am. J. Sociol. 125:853–55
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Lovitts B. 2001. Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure From Doctoral Study Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
  51. Lucas JW, Morrell K, Posard M. 2013. Considerations of the “replication problem” in sociology. Am. Sociologist 44:217–32
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Maitland A, Presser S. 2016. How accurately do different evaluation methods predict the reliability of survey questions?. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 4:362–81
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Maitland A, Presser S. 2018. How do question evaluation methods compare in predicting problems observed in typical survey conditions?. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 6:465–90
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Maitland A, Presser S 2019. A comparison of five question evaluation methods in predicting the validity of respondent answers to factual items. Advances in Questionnaire Design, Development, Evaluation, and Testing PC Beatty, D Collins, L Kaye, JL Padilla, GB Willis, A Wilmot 75–90 New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Malcolm S. 2019. Written testimony of Dr. Shirley Malcom, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Presented to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, May 9
  56. Martin JL. 2017. Thinking Through Methods Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  57. Martin YM, Maclachlan M, Karmel T. 2001. How is Australia's Higher Education Performing? An Analysis of Completion Rates of a Cohort of Australian Post Graduate Research Students in the 1990s Canberra, ACT: Dep. Educ. Train. Youth
  58. McCloskey DN. 1985. The loss function has been mislaid: the rhetoric of significance tests. Am. Econ. Rev. 75:201–5
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Meehl PE. 1967. Theory-testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philos. Sci. 34:103–15
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Meehl PE. 1990. Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychol. Rep. 66:195–244
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Merton RK. 1948. The bearing of empirical research upon the development of sociological theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 13:505–15
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Morrison DE, Henkel RE, eds. 1970. The Significance Test Controversy Chicago: Aldine
  63. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. 2019a. A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  64. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med. 2019b. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  65. Noy S, Ray R. 2012. Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisors: Is there systematic disadvantage in mentorship?. J. High. Educ. 83:876–912
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Open Sci. Collab. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:6251aac4716
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Overbye D. 2017. Yearning for new physics at CERN, in a post-Higgs way. New York Times June 20, p. D1
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Peytchev A, Presser S, Zhang MM. 2018. Improving traditional nonresponse bias adjustments: combining statistical properties with social theory. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 6:491–515
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Polanyi M. 1946. Science, Faith and Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  70. Polanyi M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  71. Polya G. 1954. Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Vol. I: Induction and Analogy in Mathematics Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Poovey M. 1998. A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  73. Presser S. 1984a. Is inaccuracy on factual survey items item-specific or respondent-specific?. Public Opin. Q. 48:344–55
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Presser S 1984b. The use of survey data in basic research in the social sciences. Surveying Subjective Phenomena, Vol. 2 CF Turner, E Martin 93–114 New York: Russell Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Presser S. 1994. Informed consent and confidentiality in survey research. Public Opin. Q. 58:446–59
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Presser S, Blair J. 1994. Survey pretesting: Do different methods produce different results?. Sociol. Methodol. 1994:73–104
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Presser S, Rothgeb JM, Couper MP, Lessler JT, Martin E et al. 2004. Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires New York: Wiley
  78. Presser S, Singer E, Van Hoewyk J. 2000. Knowing versus feeling as factors in willingness to report information to the census. Soc. Sci. Res. 29:140–47
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Presser S, Stinson L. 1998. Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:137–45
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Presser S, Traugott M. 1992. Little white lies and social science models: correlated response errors in a panel study of voting. Public Opin. Q. 56:77–86
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Presser S, Traugott M, Traugott S. 1990. Vote “over” reporting in surveys: the records or the respondents? ANES Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 010157, ANES, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA; and Univ. Mich. Ann Arbor, Mich:.
  82. Putnam RD. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon and Schuster
  83. Reichenbach H. 1938. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and Structure of Knowledge Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  84. Riley MW 1988. Social Change and the Life Course, Vol. 2: Sociological Lives Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Sandberg J, Alvesson M. 2011. Ways of constructing research questions: gap-spotting or problematization?. Organization 18:23–44
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Schickore J. 2018. Scientific discovery. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy E Zalta Stanford, CA: Stanford Metaphys. Res. Lab https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/scientific-discovery/
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Schuman H. 1972. Two sources of antiwar sentiment in America. Am. J. Sociol. 78:513–36
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Schuman H, Presser S. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context New York: Academic
  89. Schwartz MA. 2008. The importance of stupidity in scientific research. J. Cell Sci. 121:1771
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U 2011. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22:1359–66
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Smith DE 2003. Resisting institutional capture as a research practice. Our Studies, Our Selves B Glassner, R Hertz 150–61 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Sorfleet JR. 1990. Secondary bibliography of Bliss Carman's work. Bliss Carman: A Reappraisal G. Lynch 197–204 Ottawa, ON: Univ. Ottawa Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Sowell R, Zhang T, Redd K. 2008. Ph.D. completion and attrition: analysis of baseline program data from the Ph.D. Completion Project Rep., Counc. Grad. Sch. Washington, DC:
  94. Sprague J, Zimmerman MK 1983. Overcoming dualisms: a feminist agenda for sociological methodology. Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory P England 255–80 Chicago: Aldine
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sullivan SP. 2019. Challenges for comparative fact-finding. Int. J. Evid. Proof 23:100–6
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Szymborska W. 1996. The poet and the world transl. S Baranczak, C Cavanagh Nobel Lecture, Stockholm Dec. 6
  97. Terrell S. 2016. Writing a Proposal for Your Dissertation New York: Guilford
  98. Turner RK, Bateman IJ. 2003. Editors’ note. Environ. Resour. Econ. 25:255–56
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Wade L. 2019. New species of ancient human unearthed. Science 364:6436108
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Weber M 1946. Science as a vocation. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology H Gerth, CW Mills 129–56 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Zuckerman EW. 2017. On genre: a few more tips to article-writers. Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal Blog May 27. https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/2019/5/27/ezra-w-zuckermanon-genre-a-few-more-tips-to-article-writers
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Zuckerman H, Merton RK 1972. Age, aging, and age structure in science. Aging and Society, Volume 3: A Sociology of Age Stratification MW Riley, M Johnson, A Foner 292–356 New York: Russell Sage Found.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-080321-073017
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error