734146

research-article2017
SRO0010.1177/1360780417734146Sociological Research OnlineWilliams et al.

Article

Sociological Research Online

1­–20
A Tale of Two Sociologies: © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Analytic Versus Critique in sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1360780417734146
https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780417734146
UK sociology journals.sagepub.com/home/sro

Malcolm Williams
Cardiff University, UK

Luke Sloan
Cardiff University, UK

Charlotte Brookfield
Cardiff University, UK

Abstract
Several studies, in recent years, have demonstrated what has become known as the ‘quantitative
deficit’ in UK sociology. This deficit is primarily manifested through negative student attitudes
towards quantitative methods, a lack of ability in that area and a paucity of quantitative research
and publication in the discipline that utilises quantitative methods. While we acknowledge the
existence of that deficit, we argue in this article, and present some initial evidence in support
of this argument, that the issue is not simply just about a ‘crisis of number’ but the kind of
sociology taught and practised in the United Kingdom. We suggest here that there are two broad
categories of sociology that do not necessarily divide along quantitative–qualitative lines, which
we term ‘analytic’ and ‘critique’. Much of UK sociology takes a ‘critique’ approach, which may
well be a quite legitimate way to do sociology, but is not a sufficient basis on which quantitative
sociology can be done and has implications for the future of the discipline.

Keywords
analysis, critique, quantitative deficit, statistics

Introduction
In several countries in recent years, but particularly in the UK, there has been a growing
awareness and concern about what might be termed the ‘quantitative deficit’ in

Corresponding author:
Malcolm Williams, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII
Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK.
Email: williamsmd4@cardiff.ac.uk
2 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

sociology. This is said to manifest itself in a dearth of sociological output that is even
minimally ‘quantitative’ and in negative student attitudes towards, and lack of ability in,
quantitative methods (see, for example, British Academy 2012; Bulmerr, 2011;
Macinnes, 2014, forthcoming) The need for ability in quantitative methods is said to
matter for the future relevance of the discipline and its ability to produce sociologists
capable of utilising the appropriate methodological tools to describe and explain macro-
level phenomena. It is also seen as a matter of concern that the discipline is not produc-
ing sufficient ‘numerate’ graduates able to enter other occupations (Williams et al.,
2008). While we acknowledge that there is a quantitative deficit, we also argue for a
different, but associated, explanation that may underlie or intersect with the quantitative
deficit. We propose that in the UK, there are ‘two sociologies’ present and one of these
has a key feature of being opposed to, or disinterested in, quantitative methods. This
article, then, draws on several recent studies to explore the question of what kind of
discipline students and sociologists think sociology is. In an attempt to locate this within
an international context, particularly in terms of disciplinary coherence, we additionally
present data from a small-scale survey of sociologists in New Zealand and the
Netherlands as comparators.
The findings from these studies (and the others cited above) are that undoubtedly
there is a ‘quantitative deficit’ in sociology. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence of a wider
numeracy problem among university students in many disciplines and not just those in
the social sciences (e.g. Hodgen et al., 2014). However, in this article, we present some
initial evidence to indicate that the ‘quantitative problem’ in UK sociology is as much
about the contemporary nature of the discipline itself, than simply a numeric
deficit–specifically the fact that many students and sociologists see the discipline as
based on humanistic critique, rather than scientific analysis.
For these sociologists, such an approach might be seen as a virtue–that sociology
should be entirely humanistic in its underlying philosophy and methods. It is not our
intention to take sides in this debate, but we contend that for those who wish to address
the quantitative deficit, this will not be achieved through pedagogic strategies aimed only
at addressing the problem of number.
The principal sources of data for this article are the following:

•• The results from a national study of sociology student attitudes towards quantita-
tive methods, conducted in 2007 (Williams et al., 2008).
•• An experimental study of the embedding of quantitative methods in substantive
modules, conducted in two UK universities in 2012/2013. Survey items from each
of these will be presented, but additionally the article will draw on the rather more
‘thick’ description arising from a number of focus group interviews in each study
(Williams et al., 2015).
•• Data drawn from a survey of professional sociologists on the nature and purpose
of British sociology distributed through the British Sociological Association
(BSA) newsletter and sociology university departments in 2015/2016.
•• Comparative data, from the same study, on the views of sociologists from the
Netherlands and New Zealand on the nature of sociology in their countries, con-
ducted in December 2016.
Williams et al. 3

These findings and our conclusions are tentative. Sampling and sample size, as we will
indicate below, did not necessarily ‘capture’ the views of the whole discipline–either
students or sociologists, though through inference to the best explanation (Lipton, 1991);
we believe our findings are of enough substantive significance to invite further explora-
tion and testing. The article is organised as follows: in the first section, we briefly con-
trast and chart the course of what we have termed ‘analytic’ and ‘critique’ approaches to
sociology. We then provide a brief overview of our methods and data and indeed their
limitations. Following this, we examine a range of measures of student attitudes to quan-
titative methods, taken from the 2006/2007 and 2012/2013 studies. The surveys in each
of these studies explored both student attitude and ability with number, but also attitudes
towards sociology. In both studies, rich data were obtained from follow-up qualitative
work exploring attitudes, and in the second section of the article, we show how these
findings may contextualise the survey data. In this section, we also draw on the attitudes
of ‘professional’ sociologists working in UK universities and compare their attitudes
with those of a sample of professional sociologists working in universities in New
Zealand and the Netherlands.
Our concern here (and indeed the claim we make) refers to UK sociology; however, the
first two studies were confined to England and Wales, but the third sampled additionally from
Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although it may be the case that student attitudes towards
quantitative methods are different in the latter two countries, it is equally true that each has a
Q-Step centre, indicating at least the perceived existence of a quantitative deficit.

Analytic and critique sociology

In an article such as this, where the question is a concern with broad styles of sociology and
their consequences, some shorthand is necessary. Here, we use the terms ‘analytic’ and
‘critique’ to characterise two ways of approaching sociology. Analytic sociology is the term
often used to describe a quite specific version of scientific sociology that combines theories
and empirical data to produce sociological explanations (Bunge, 1997; Coleman, 1986;
Hedström, 2005; Hedström and Swedberg, 1998). It mostly employs mechanistic explana-
tion and variants on middle range theory. Our use of the term ‘analytic’ encompasses this
specific use, but is also broader and meant solely to indicate a sociology that aims to pro-
duce descriptions and explanations of social phenomena. It does not exclude ‘understand-
ing’ as methodological virtue, nor does it deny the role of ‘critique’ as an element in the
methodological toolkit. It certainly does not exclude qualitative methods and indeed the
research described here has qualitative elements. Our antinomy is more heuristic than taxo-
nomic, but hopefully the following brief description captures the essence of the ‘sociolo-
gies’ we have here described as ‘analytic’ and ‘critique’.
Throughout the history of sociology and its analogous disciplines, there have been a
number of cleavages, some more radical than others, that conform to the dichotomy we
have used. G. H. von Wright, in his paper ‘Two Traditions’ (Von Wright, 1993), makes a
number of distinctions in approach, that he traces to the differences between the
Aristotelean and Galilean traditions and then to that of the methodenstreit dispute in the
19th century. He contrasts the monistic causal approach of positivism with that of the
hermeneutic tradition of understanding—of explanation versus understanding. This
4 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

cleavage was apparent in the early days of US sociology, with a tendency for that ema-
nating from Columbia university to broadly follow the first approach and that from
Chicago following the second (Madge, 1963). In the United Kingdom, the early days of
sociology, primarily at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),
were influenced by both traditions, though UK sociology was rarely as ‘quantitative’ or
‘explanatory’ in its approach as that of the United States.
Two developments can be said to have particularly influenced UK sociology since the
1960s. First, the expansion of the discipline in the ‘red brick’ universities and the poly-
technics was facilitated by a desire to expand student numbers and sociology was a dis-
cipline that was able to expand quite cheaply to fill student places (Payne, 2014a). But
the new sociologists teaching in these establishments were rarely from a ‘quantitative’ or
‘explanatory’ background and indeed at this time to have taught quantitative sociology
would have required a greater investment in expensive computing facilities.
Second, this was a period of political radicalisation and one that often linked ‘science’
and ‘scientific method’ to that of conservatism and militarism. There was a societal back-
lash, particularly the post-Vietnam war against science (Williams, 2000), and this got played
out in disciplines, such as sociology, which were seen by many as potential means towards
emancipation (Williams, 2000). Philosophically, interpretive or hermeneutic approaches
were further influenced by postmodernism, which particularly stressed epistemological
relativism and condemned the ‘grand narratives’ (which in sociology included positivism)
(Rosenau, 1991) and the linguistic and literary turns, which emphasised the importance of
language to understanding the social. It eschews explanation in favour only of descriptions
or ‘stories’ and in particular embraces an epistemological relativism that denies the possibil-
ity of explanation or generalisation (Clifford and Marcus, 1986). This form of sociology is
humanistic and has much in common with critique-centred literary criticism.
The ‘turn’ towards humanist approaches did not preclude parallel work in more
explanatory sociology and indeed this continued (Platt, 2012), but there was (and we
contend there still is) a degree of animosity between the two approaches. Such was this
animosity that it was a key battlefield in the ‘science wars’ in the 1980s, which might be
said to have reached its apogee in the ‘Sokal Affair’ (Sokal and Bricmont, 1988).
Thatcher’s Conservative Government was particularly dismissive of social science
research (Eldridge, 2011; Holmwood, 2014; Posner, 2002: Ch. 26). They expressed con-
cerns surrounding the scientific integrity of research conducted within the social sciences
and their ability to inform policy and practice. Subsequently, research budgets for the
social sciences were cut and demands were made for greater transparency in research. In
1981, the Minister of State for Education, Sir Keith Joseph, called for a review of the
Social Science Research Council (the predecessor of the Economic Social Research
Council). As a result of the review, the word ‘science’ was dropped from the academic
council title. Moreover, there was a demand from Government for findings of social sci-
ence research to be more explicitly linked to policy and economic development.
In the last decade or so, we have witnessed quieter times, with each side often conced-
ing, though not always embracing, elements of the other’s approach. This has been facili-
tated to some extent by the methodological pluralism afforded by the growing influence
of critical realist (and allied) approaches and the growth of US pragmatist–influenced
mixed-methods approaches (Blaikie and Priest, 2017).
Williams et al. 5

Whether one uses number or not is secondary to the methodological differences an

analytic or criticalist approach makes. While there are important differences in the ana-
lytic approach (say between realism, post-positivism, and positivism), there is a common
core as treating social phenomena as real (or a proxy for real) (Kincaid, 1996) that can be
caused, or can cause other social phenomena. The analytic approach shares the common
foundations of science: description, explanation, and theory testing and, more specifi-
cally, that through the use of appropriate sampling we can generalise from sample to
population or from one time or place to another. The criticalist approach rejects these
goals or means of doing social science on the grounds that they are either methodologi-
cally impossible to achieve, in the social world, or ethically undesirable. Criticalist
approaches instead emphasise the diversity of social interaction and the importance of an
understanding of meaning. Often there is a commitment to emancipation, or the realisa-
tion of human potential. Many, though not all, of those favouring this approach would
also embrace epistemological relativism.
The above is very much a broad brush or thumbnail sketch of the origins and charac-
teristics of what we have described as ‘analytic’ and ‘critique’ approaches. Hopefully, the
adherents of each will forgive such a summary. In extremis, this is mostly a straw person,
or possibly an ideal type; however, we believe its more extreme forms have taken root in
student perceptions of what sociology is.

Methods and data

Our evidence about student attitudes to number comes from studies conducted in 2007
(reported fully in Williams et al., 2008) and 2012 (Williams et al., 2015). The 2007 study
sought to investigate the characteristics of students studying sociology at university and
their attitudes towards being taught research methods. Data were collected using a self-
completion online questionnaire administered by email to second- and third-year under-
graduate students in a random sample of 34 sociology departments across universities in
England and Wales. The departments represented a range of institutions (old and new
universities) and the questionnaire received 738 responses (further details can be found
in Williams et al., 2008).
The current article additionally utilises data from a pre-test survey of students, in the
control and experimental groups, of a quasi-experiment design, to evaluate the impact on
undergraduate Year 2 student attitudes towards quantitative methods before and after an
intervention at the universities of Cardiff and Plymouth. The experimental findings are
reported in Williams et al. (2015). In the survey, students were asked to what extent they
agreed or disagreed on a series of statements designed to capture their feelings towards
quantitative methods and statistics, and it is these findings reported in this article. There
were 337 responses.
The data pertaining to professional sociologists were collected via an online survey,
distributed through the BSA mailing list in October 2015. In July 2016, a further sweep
of data collection took place. A database of those listed as sociology staff on all UK uni-
versity websites was created and every member was sent a copy of the survey. A total of
1024 sociologists responded to the survey. Further analysis suggests that the survey sam-
ple was representative according to gender and seniority.
6 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

A shortened version of the survey was distributed to sociologists in both the

Netherlands and New Zealand. These surveys were initially distributed via contacts in
each country and later emailed directly to the sociology departments in every institution
in each country. A total of 125 responded to the survey in the Netherlands, while 33
responded to the survey in New Zealand. Both samples were representative in respect of
gender; however, professors and associate professors were under-represented in the
Netherlands sample and PhD researchers over-represented in the New Zealand sample.

Student attitudes to number

Through the 2000s, there were a number of interventions in the UK sociology curriculum
aimed at establishing the extent, and nature, of what has become known as the quantita-
tive deficit and alongside these a number of interventions in student learning aimed at
ameliorating this deficit. This deficit was, and continues to be, seen as independent of
deeper issues concerning the nature of UK sociology. Many of the interventions were
small-scale action research projects, which have resulted in a growing literature report-
ing on the experiences of these (see, for example, Dale, 2009; Falkingham, 2009;
Williams et al., 2015). The framing of the research questions and the assumptions of the
ameliorative interventions were that students feared number and that sociology and anal-
ogous disciplines were refuges for students wanting to avoid engagement with number.
Yet, it is far from clear that fear and avoidance go together. The 2006/2007 student sur-
vey did indeed confirm an overall negative attitude towards number and there was evi-
dence of some lack of confidence in learning quantitative methods (Williams et al.,
2008). However, this was not overwhelmingly a number problem and 50% of students
reported a good experience of maths at school (as compared to 43% who had a bad expe-
rience). Similarly, slightly more students saw themselves as good at maths than those
who saw themselves as bad (44% and 42%, respectively). In all, 75% disagreed with the
statement ‘One of the reasons I chose this degree is because I don’t like maths’.
The 2013 survey largely replicated the earlier one and was conducted to gauge student
attitude and ability prior to the intervention. We are treating the two universities as a
‘proxy’ for UK undergraduate sociology as a whole, and we are aware that a more accu-
rate comparison would have been a replication of the 2007 survey. Indeed, in the last 7
years, both universities invested resources in improving the student experience of learn-
ing quantitative methods. Not all universities would have experienced such investment
and thus one might therefore anticipate more ‘pro-quantitative’ attitudes from students in
these two universities.
Table 1 compares some measures from the 2006/2007 survey with that of the
2012/2013 survey.
Both surveys asked about maths experience, though the earlier survey framed it as
whether the student had had a bad experience and later whether it was an enjoyable one.
The responses have been standardised into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ experience. Although
there has been some change during the period, this is mostly accounted for by an increase
in numbers who were unsure. Overall attitudes over time were similar, but nevertheless
in both cases, over 40% of students were positive about maths. This is borne out by the
General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) results of the participants in the
Williams et al. 7

Table 1.  Comparison of students by institution type in 2006/2007 and 2012 study.

2006/2007 study 2012/2013 study

  Pre-1992 Post-1992 Overall Plymouth (post- Cardiff (pre- Overall

1992 proxy) 1992 proxy)
Did qualification 14.8 17.3 14.8 16.1 25.8 19.9
before university
include maths? (%
with qual.)
I’d rather write an 63.6 68.2 65.4 72.0 85.2 77.1
essay than analyse
data (% agree)
On the whole, 25.1 34.8 28.3 18.1 15.6 17.1
you can’t trust
statistics (% agree)

2012/2013 survey. Of the 98% who took GCSE maths, 29% received an A grade and
35% a B grade. Finally, the belief that students take sociology to avoid number is not
borne out by the findings in either survey, with only 19% in 2006/2007 and 14% in 2013
agreeing with the statement that ‘One of the reasons I chose this degree is that I don’t like
maths’. This last finding does seem to indicate that while there may be anxiety about
number, the perceived relative absence of number in a sociology degree is not a major
factor in choosing it. Is there, then, something about sociology or something about the
way students perceive it that is more relevant to them than the issue of number?

Student views about sociology

However, there is evidence from the surveys that many students prefer the more discur-
sive task of writing an essay than analysing data; indeed, while the later survey finds
evidence of less negative attitudes towards statistics, more students preferred writing an
essay to undertaking data analysis. From the survey data alone, we cannot know how we
can account for these apparently conflictual attitudes. There are clues about the overall
attitude of students towards sociology as a discipline. In both surveys, students were
asked to locate their discipline on a nine-point semantic differential scale in respect of
whether they regarded it as closer to the arts/humanities or to the natural sciences/
mathematics.
Table 2 clearly shows that the majority of students scored the discipline as closer to
the arts/humanities than science/maths. It has been speculated that students taking a prior
A-levels in art might be inclined to see sociology as closer to the arts and those taking a
mathematics A-Level as closer to science. In fact, though there was some variation at the
different measurement points, more students in both groups still thought sociology nearer
to the arts/humanities than the sciences. Nevertheless, students in the later study were
somewhat more inclined ‘toward science’ and many more chose the middle category.
This change may be reflected across the sector, but equally may be the result of a greater
emphasis on quantitative methods in the two universities studied.
8 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

Table 2.  Attitudes to sociology by A-level subject studied.

Closer to arts/ Neutral Closer to N

humanities science

  2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012

Not studied sociology 76.0 54.9 11.1 24.3 12.9 20.8 271 144
Studied sociology 73.4 56.9 16.0 24.6 10.7 18.5 413 130
Not studied art 74.0 56.2 14.4 23.8 11.6 20.0 630 260
Studied art 79.6 50.0 9.3 35.7 11.1 14.3 54 14
Not studied maths 75.0 56.4 14.0 22.9 11.0 20.8 580 236
Studied maths 71.2 52.6 14.4 34.2 14.4 13.2 104 38

Nevertheless, it remains that the preference for essays and the relatively small number
of students who see their subject as close to the sciences does suggest an approach to
sociology that may be more discursive and humanistic than analytic and scientific

The ‘two sociologies’: how students see the discipline

Over both studies, a total of 14 focus groups were conducted in order to explore different
constituencies such as stage of study, gender, age, new/old university, and so on. The
2006/2007 groups tended to be more exploratory because at this time, the area of study was
relatively under researched, but in 2012/2013, some particular lines of inquiry, especially
attitudes towards the discipline, were followed up with respondents. The nature and further
findings from these groups are reported more fully in Williams et al. (2008, 2016).
Indeed, disciplinary attitudes were in the forefront of the 2006/2007 group discus-
sions, even though the intention had been to emphasise attitudes towards quantitative
methods. A view of sociology, often repeated in different ways, was expressed by a third-
year sociology student in a new university in the earlier study:

there are sociology courses that you can do that I didn’t think were part of sociology, they take
a very scientific consideration of sociology and that made me think of it in a different way.

This student expressed surprise of the existence of ‘analytic’ sociology, though most
respondents were aware of its existence, but tended to regard it as ‘other’ and not for
them. In only one of the 2012/2013 focus groups (with only five students) there was a
view that both quantitative and qualitative evidence was of use to the students in their
own work. This group was unusual in that their course was not wholly sociology, but
included a substantial number of health modules and moreover they were mature stu-
dents. Yet in both studies, students reported having taken statistics or quantitative meth-
ods courses that did not much inform their own methodological or theoretical choices.
There was evidence that prior theoretical positions had more influence on methodo-
logical choices than methods modules themselves. Moreover, the theoretical approaches
that were attracting them are ‘critical’ ones that offer not just a critique of the social order
but also the ways of coming to know it. A third-year student was clear about this:
Williams et al. 9

[My choice] is my interest in the theory, I know which perspectives I like and that has guided
my method, ’cos often when you look at a perspective they have like a certain methodological
approach that they take anyway … Well I’m going to do critical discourse, taking a Foucauldian
poststructural approach, I wouldn’t have taken a statistics, quantitative approach because it
wouldn’t have coincided with the theoretical approach. I’m also taking a feminist approach
and, from the specific literature of feminism that I’ve read, taking a numerical statistical
approach wouldn’t have coincided with what they counted as valued social research.

In most of the focus groups, in both studies, the majority of students could see a clear
link between their theoretical perspectives and the humanistic approaches to their own
research in their final-year dissertations. Their theoretical preferences were primarily
post-structural or feminist and there was no independent mention of more analytic theo-
rists, such as Parsons, Merton, or Alexander, or indeed classical theorists such as
Durkheim, Marx, or Weber. No student appeared to be doing any quantitative primary
work or secondary data analysis and many expressed either contradictory or relativist
views towards data. This was exemplified by the following from a third-year student in
the 2012/2013 study:

You can’t say something is certain for a fact, but you know when you read things and there’s
something going on that there is some kind of social phenomena happening. You understand it
makes sense even though it can’t be proven.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer because things change all the time. Things are
different in every society and things happen for different reasons in every society.

Many of the students saw sociology as a means to vindicate a particular position

taken. For them, the purpose of their own investigation was to find supportive evidence
for their stance:

It can depend sometimes on my bias and if I agree with the data that is being presented. If I
don’t agree with the outcome then I will sometimes look to critique the way it was collected. If
I believe it I will sometimes just see it as proof.

Across all focus groups, there was an often grudging acceptance that some skills in
statistics or quantitative methods were necessary in their course, but valuable more as a
‘transferable skill’. This is borne out by the overwhelming view in the surveys that ‘good
numeric skills will help me get a job’. Nevertheless, the ‘mood’ of every focus group but
one (see above) was a proclivity towards the qualitative involving the theoretical and
critique with scepticism about statistics and a clear preference from the students for
doing discursive work.

What professional sociologists think

An online survey was distributed to investigate the research practices and beliefs about
the function and character of the discipline held by professional sociologists (further
details of this study are in Appendix 1 at the end of the article. The online survey of
10 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

Table 3.  Mean scores of variables determining cluster group membership.

Cluster 1 mean score (59.3%) Cluster 2 mean score (40.7%)

Objective 3.56 5.96
Problem solving 4.26 6.61
Creative 4.54 6.94
Generalisable 4.25 6.22

professional sociologists consisted of closed-answered questions on participants’ views

on the nature and purpose of sociology and questions relating to respondents’ own
research practices. Open-text boxes were positioned at the end of each page of the survey
to enable participants to leave any further qualitative comments. The comments were
particularly revealing of the views that practicing sociologists hold of their discipline and
the current pressures that UK sociologists face.
Using semantic differential scales ranging from 1 to 10, survey participants rated whether
they believed particular adjectives were good or poor descriptors of British sociology.
Adjectives with low mean score and therefore deemed ‘Very Poor’ at describing the disci-
pline included generalisable, objective, problem solving, scientific, value-free, and value-
neutral. Meanwhile, the following adjectives were among those classified as ‘Very Good’
descriptors of the discipline: descriptive, reflexive, contextual, and theory driven. Further
cluster analysis revealed that the respondents clustered into two groups based on how effec-
tively they believed these adjectives described the discipline. The first, largest cluster
(59.3%) gave lower mean scores (below 5) to adjectives typically associated with scientific
research such as ‘Objective’ and ‘Generalisable’, while the second group (40.7%) (mean
scores above 5) was more likely to believe these adjectives were good descriptors of sociol-
ogy and therefore gave higher mean scores (see Table 3). This suggests at least some degree
of scepticism, among the majority of sociologists surveyed, towards the notion that UK
sociology is scientific in its approach to understanding the social world.
As with the previous research conducted with students, survey participants were asked
to indicate whether they believed that sociological research was closer to the arts and
humanities or the natural sciences but, unlike with the students, the sociologists were asked
to assess this alongside the following dimensions: methodology, analytical tools, public
utility, subject status, and subject content. Table 4 shows that the majority of participants
viewed the subject content (64.3%) and status (66.9%) of sociological research as closer to
the arts and humanities. In terms of methodology, analytical tools, and public utility, sociol-
ogy was seen as mid-way between the arts and humanities and the natural sciences.
Qualitative comments provided by participants suggested that some are concerned
that there is a growing belief among sociologists and policy makers that adopting the
scientific method will give the discipline more status and public utility. For instance,

I feel sociology … should probably give up its sense of inferiority vis-à-vis the natural sciences
or ‘harder’ social sciences (e.g. economics).

…sociologist/policy makers should be cautious not to convert the discipline into a pretentiously
mathematical mumbo-jumbo which by and large economics is. If mathematics is the hallmark
Williams et al. 11

Table 4.  Percentage of participants seeing sociology as closer to the arts and humanities or
the natural sciences by dimensions.

Arts and humanities (%) Mid-way (%) Natural sciences (%)

Methodology 34.8 43.3 21.9
Analytical tools 37.1 39.2 23.8
Public utility 31.5 38.5 29.6
Status 66.9 25.2 7.9
Subject content 64.3 26.2 9.5

of ‘scientific’ disciplines, I would rather unpretentiously declare sociology as an art than

introducing pretentious ’fat/thin tailed statistical tests’ into it.

As with the students, sociologists seem to suggest that in terms of methodology and
analytical tools, British sociology falls somewhere between the arts and humanities and
the natural sciences. However, the qualitative comments suggest a rejection of a possible
move to a more analytical sociology.

Sociology in New Zealand and the Netherlands

The views of sociologists on the nature and function of sociology from the UK were
compared to those held by professional sociologists in New Zealand and the Netherlands.
These comparator countries were chosen for two reasons. Pragmatically, the countries
included in the study needed to be anglophone countries or countries where English is
widely used in the discipline. Second, it was deemed beneficial to choose one country
where the level of engagement with quantitative research methods in sociology was
comparatively greater than the UK and one where the level of engagement with quantita-
tive research methods in sociology was comparatively less than the UK. Sociological
research in the Netherlands is deemed to be of very good quality and has been applauded
for engaging with a diverse range of methods and substantive issues (Quality Assurance
Review of Universities in the Netherlands, 2014). Previous studies exploring the research
methods training of undergraduate sociology students have highlighted the high number
of research methods modules and specific quantitative research methods modules that
students in the Netherlands are mandated to study (Parker et al., 2008). In contrast, dif-
ficulties recruiting students to the discipline have resulted in research methods modules
being dropped from degree programmes in New Zealand (Crothers, 2008). Moreover,
content analysis of ‘Sociology New Zealand’ shows that small-scale qualitative studies
predominate the discipline in New Zealand.
The data from both the Netherlands and New Zealand suggest possibly a more
coherent, unified discipline in those countries than that in the UK. In the New Zealand
sample, almost 40% of the participants reported working in research areas that fell
into the top two most frequently listed research areas cited by the participants: ‘Health
and Medicine’ and ‘The Economy’ (Table 5). Nearly 33% of the Netherlands partici-
pants reported researching the top two most frequently listed research areas for their
country: ‘Social Inequalities, Social Cohesion and Diversity’ and ‘Race, Ethnicity
12 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

Table 5.  Comparison of research areas: UK, Netherlands, and New Zealand.

United Kingdom Netherlands New Zealand

Research Social inequalities, 17.0% Social inequalities, 21.6% Health and 28.6%
area 1 social cohesion, social cohesion, medicine
and diversity and diversity
Research Health and 9.8% Race, ethnicity, 11.3% The economy 9.5%
area 2 medicine and migration

and Migration’. The top two most frequently researched areas for the UK only encom-
passed 26.8% of the sample. This, coupled with further evidence presented below,
may suggest that sociology is a more homogenous discipline in the Netherlands and
especially in New Zealand, while being perhaps a more fragmented or diverse
discipline in the UK.
Furthermore, respondents in both the Netherlands and New Zealand were more posi-
tive about quality of sociological research produced in their country compared to that
produced by other nations (Table 6). Over 65% of the Netherlands respondents reported
that sociology was better in their country compared to other countries, with a further 5.8%
stating that it was a great deal better. None of the respondents said that sociological
research was of a great deal poorer quality in their country in comparison to other coun-
tries. In all, 10.5% of the New Zealand participants stated that sociology was better in
their country compared to other countries and the majority stated that sociology in their
country was similar to sociology in other countries. A small percentage of the New
Zealand respondents stated that the quality of sociological research in their country was
poorer than other countries (5.3%); however, no participants stated that it was a great deal
poorer. Meanwhile, for the UK sample, 10.0% of participants agreed that UK sociological
research was of poorer quality than that produced in other countries and almost a further
2.0% agreed that it was a great deal poorer in quality. In all, 41.0% of the respondents
stated that sociological research in the UK was of a similar quality to sociological research
in other countries, while 42.1% and 5.1% stated that sociological research was of a better
and much better quality in the UK, respectively. Particularly, in comparison to the
Netherlands, the respondents from the UK are much more negative about the status and
quality of the sociological research in their country.
Similarly, neither the respondents in the Netherlands nor New Zealand mentioned a
disciplinary crisis. This is compared to the UK sample who, without prompting, talked
extensively about an impending crisis in British sociology. For instance,

Sociology is in major crisis as it is like a dinosaur and has not adapted to changing social world.

Sociology is in crisis as it talks to itself and not to the wider world. It is not seen as relevant. It
should be about inequalities and social justice particularly race gender class sexuality divisions,
but it is an elite discourse dominated by white and mainly male middle class scholars.

This again contributes to the notion that the discipline may be seen as more frag-
mented, diverse, and in a more chaotic state in the UK than in other countries.
Williams et al. 13

Table 6.  Attitudes towards national sociologies.

United Kingdom Netherlands New Zealand

A great deal better 5.1% 5.8% 0.0%
Better 42.1% 65.1% 10.5%
Similar 41.0% 27.9% 84.2%
Poorer 10.0% 1.2% 5.3%
A great deal poorer 1.8% 0.0% 0.0%

For the international surveys, participants were asked to list key words to describe
their discipline. In total, 83 different words were used by those in the Netherlands sample
and 34 by the New Zealand sample. The most popular words for the Netherlands sample
were ‘Quantitative’, ‘Empirical’, and ‘Theory Driven’ and these were stated by 24% (30
participants), 7.2% (9 participants), and 7.2% (9 participants) of the respondents, respec-
tively. For the New Zealand sample, ‘Qualitative’ and ‘Small-Scale’ were the words most
frequently used to describe the discipline. These were each stated by 9.1% of participants
(three participants). Interestingly, the key words chosen by the respondents in each coun-
try often related to method or the nature of research. This suggests that this is a potent
issue in all national sociologies and not just a preoccupation within the discipline in the
UK.
The existing literature on the output of sociology in each country suggests that soci-
ologists in the UK, the Netherlands, and New Zealand have shown a marked preference
for either qualitative or quantitative approaches to studying the social world. In the study
of professional sociologists, approximately 55% of those in the UK and the New Zealand
samples stated that they were qualitative researchers, while less than 10% of participants
in either country identified as quantitative researchers (Table 7). Meanwhile, of the
Netherlands sample, 74% of respondents reported being quantitative researchers in com-
parison to just 7% who identified as qualitative researchers.
The small sample sizes for the Netherlands and New Zealand studies meant that the
data from these countries should be treated as an ‘indicative’ hypothesis that sociology
in the Netherlands and New Zealand is more united and there is greater consensus on the
nature of the discipline.

Discussion–UK sociology today

The evidence from a variety of studies seems to indicate that there is not an overwhelm-
ing fear of number among university sociology students in the UK.
Yet, equally, as we have seen, there is a preference for not doing quantitative analysis
and instead for the more discursive activity of writing essays. There is evidence of epis-
temological relativism and a belief that sociology is closer to the humanities than the
sciences.
Two non-mutually exclusive factors may explain this. The first is the structure of the
sociology curriculum and the way research methods are taught. At the time of writing, while
there are changes occurring in Q-Step Centres, most quantitative research methods are
14 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

Table 7.  Comparison of methods used: United Kingdom, Netherlands, and New Zealand.

United Kingdom Netherlands New Zealand

Quantitative 9.0% 74.0% 9.1%
Qualitative 57.7% 7.0% 54.5%
Mixed methods 32.0% 19.0% 31.8%
I do not undertake empirical research 1.3% 0.0% 4.5%

taught within ‘methods modules’ and the position remains much as it was in the early 2000s
(Williams et al., 2004). Thus, the modules must integrate substantive examples into the
methods content, rather than integrating methods into substantive content. Often, for rea-
sons of time, these examples are rather general and because sociologists are usually taught
methods alongside students from several disciplines, they must be eclectic. Data from the
2004 Baseline Study (Williams et al., 2004) indicated that only one in five of the lecturers
on these modules were from a sociology background, and at that time, a similar number
were from a statistics background. The quantitative methods modules are quite often ‘dem-
onstrator modules’, with students acquiring little or no hands on design or analysis skills.
Finally, the Sociology subject benchmark statements are somewhat permissive about the
teaching of quantitative methods. Students should be enabled to develop competence in

an understanding of a range of qualitative and quantitative research strategies and methods

and

have the opportunity to develop further transferable skills in …

statistical and other quantitative techniques (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2007)

Of the nine items listed under Subject Skills and Understanding, only one referred to
methods of investigation at all. Now, while this can only be claimed to evidence an empirical
issue and primarily a quantitative one, the divorce of quantitative methods from the rest of
sociology teaching may be a likely factor in students seeing such methods and the analytic
style they represent as ‘other’. Meanwhile, much of the rest of the sociology teaching they
experience is about theory or sociology already done, rather than about doing sociology.
The second factor is more complex, has a long history in the discipline in the UK and
it might be summarised as a generational reproduction of attitudes and practices. Let us
first summarise what we hypothesise is happening, before we offer some empirical and
historical evidence.
Many, if not most, sociologists in UK universities have themselves come from a cul-
ture of sociology that emphasises critique over analysis, theoretical positions, and quali-
tative over quantitative methods of enquiry that reflect the historical influences on the
discipline, as described above. This culture exists at all levels of teaching, from pre-
university A-level teaching through to postgraduate training. Their attitudes and prac-
tices incline them ideologically and practically to favour a humanistic and critical attitude
Williams et al. 15

towards the discipline, the selection of research questions that require interpretive meth-
ods, and often either an expertise in these methods or a preference for theoretical reason-
ing alone. A glimpse of the latter can be seen from a study by Payne et al. (2004) of 2
year’s article output from the mainstream UK sociology journals. Only 14.3% of papers
were classified as quantitative, using a very liberal definition of the term, with further
7.4% using mixed methods. Only 6.1% of papers employed multivariate analysis. More
‘junior’ (and to an extent this might be seen as a proxy for younger) researchers were
much more likely to use qualitative methods than their more senior colleagues and
equally less likely to use quantitative methods.
The findings in Payne et al. (2004) are not meant to suggest that quantitative methods
should predominate, or that qualitative methods cannot be ‘analytic’, but rather that these
combined with other attitudinal data and the emphasis on micro-sociological issues, for
example, relationships and personal identities (Cohen et al., 2011; Dunn and Waller, 2000;
Macinnes et al., forthcoming; Platt, 2007), suggest rather that qualitative ‘critique’
approaches now dominate sociological work in the UK. However, this is probably not new.
Payne (2014a) notes that this characteristic was present as long ago as the 1960s:

Traditional ‘political’ topics like class, power and material inequality were replaced by an
interest in social interaction and process, a change in levels of analysis from the broad brush and
extensive to the narrowly focused and intensive. (p. 81)

We can only speculate whether a shift away from these more traditional concerns, in
sociology, led to other disciplines such as economics and education taking them up,
whether it happened the other way around, or indeed whether there was a cause–effect
relationship in both directions. As John Scott (2005) suggests, sociology may well have
been exporting not just its topic areas but its imagination into other disciplines.
The shift to micro-level and humanistic sociology has been most apparent among
researchers who were explicitly feminist in their approach (Cohen et al., 2011; Dunn and
Waller, 2000). Many saw qualitative techniques as more effective at tapping into ideas
such as identity, emotions, and experience (Payne, 2014b). Feminist sociologists sought
a more reflexive approach to research. Rejection of more traditional research was a way
to ensure research was innovative and subsequently gained recognition within academia
(Oakley, 1998: 725; Payne, 2014a). Payne (2014b) argues that in a similar way, new
generations of sociologists have used research methods as a way to make their sociologi-
cal perspectives innovative and to gain status within the discipline.
Little seems to have changed. The 2015 survey of professional sociologists yielded
some illuminating unprompted qualitative comments. These suggest that not only are
some sociologists not practising methodological pluralism, but some do not even endorse
it and in fact are critical of the use of quantitative research methods in their discipline,
most succinctly summed up in the following:

quantification is the root of all evil, in sociological terms …

Counter to the evidence that we have summarised here (Payne et al., 2004), and that
has been presented elsewhere (Macinnes et al., in forthcoming), there was considerable
16 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

anxiety among participants that publications using quantitative research methods were
often prioritised in leading publications:

Contemporary sociology, especially that gleamed from the three major journals BJS, Sociology
and Soc[iological] Review, has a tendency to give priority to positivist work claiming robust
and rigorous methods. Journals increasingly prioritise a high level of professional methodological
competence on the part of their contributors, often to the detriment to qualitative and more
theoretical or conceptual analysis of contemporary social issues.

This view extends to funding, where it is probably true that the majority of research
funded is ‘quantitative’:

The problem is that the only ‘research’ funded is nonsensical quantification…

Those supporting more quantification in the curriculum argue that the discipline’s
lack of engagement with quantitative research methods means that it is often seen as
inferior to other social sciences, such as psychology and economics (Payne and Williams,
2011). This view was not held by some respondents whose comments indicated the belief
that the use of quantitative research methods was detrimental to the nature, status, and
future of the discipline:

I think the move towards quantification…is very worrying. Other disciplines can do that. The
richness of sociology comes from working with people’s stories in their detail and complexity.
We are in danger of losing that.

It is likely that the anonymous nature of the online survey mode enabled participants
(the professional sociologists) to express their concerns fully and participants felt able to
completely reject quantitative research methods as valuable to their discipline. Comments
suggested that at least some participants saw quantitative and qualitative research tech-
niques as incompatible and opposing.

Conclusion–the contested nature and the future of

sociology
Sociology (and its analogous disciplines) has always been methodologically contested,
and this contest is traceable to the early days of the discipline and the rivalry between
the ‘Chicago’ and ‘Columbia’ schools of sociology in the United States (Madge, 1963)
or indeed the methodenstreit in economics in the 19th century (Manicas, 1987). It has
been a tug of love between C. P. Snow’s (1959) ‘two cultures’, and while in recent
decades a truce in the ‘science wars’ has been observed with many sociologists claim-
ing to be ‘methodological pluralists’, it would seem that a majority of UK sociologists
do not see their discipline as close to the sciences–or as we describe ‘analytic’–and
many do not wish it to be so.
The samples from the Netherlands and New Zealand were smaller than the UK one
(equally, they are ‘smaller’ sociologies), but nevertheless they do seem to be less
Williams et al. 17

fragmented and more consensual than UK sociology, even though the evidence would
indicate the Netherlands is primarily quantitative and analytic, in approach, and New
Zealand qualitative and critique in approach.
In the UK, quite apart from sociology ceding many of its former areas of interest to
other disciplines, what sociology is depends on who you ask. The appearance is one of
fragmentation. Nevertheless, a counterfactual argument may go something like this: a frag-
mented discipline might also be described as a diverse one, whose survivability does not
depend on the adherence to any particular paradigm. Psychology, for example, which has
long been largely associated with experimental method, faces something of a crisis as the
statistical reasoning that underpin the experiment have been increasingly challenged in the
last two decades (see, for example, Krueger, 2001). Sociology, in the UK, may actually be
more agile as a result of its analytic/critique split personality.
Finally, to return to our central point, the findings from the various studies above
are far from definitive, but they do indicate that there is more to the quantitative defi-
cit in sociology teaching than simply a crisis of number. To be a successful learner of
quantitative methods, one has to know why one is doing it. What kind of claims about
the social world can be made from quantitative data and does the learner believe, or
even know, what the epistemological basis for such claims is? While a large number
of students do not see analytic sociology as legitimate or interesting, and while many
of their teachers have and convey the same views, then the learning of quantitative
methods will be either avoided or seen only as a ‘transferable skill’. This in turn also
inoculates students from the analytic, or more general, scientific approach that under-
pins quantitative methods.
One might further speculate that those graduate sociologists, from universities with
Q-Step centres or other more quantitatively inclined courses, will not necessarily work
in sociology or identify as sociologists because they too see it as a primarily humanistic
discipline based upon critique, but rather go to other disciplines or become generic
‘social researchers’ with a consequent continuation of the present situation where ana-
lytic sociology continues to be a minority pursuit within the UK discipline.
However, it is important to reiterate that our claim here is based upon a number of
sources of evidence, none of which we would claim as ’clinching’, but more as ‘evidence
to the best explanation’ (Lipton, 1991) and perhaps the beginning of a debate and further
investigation of the nature of UK sociology.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Blaikie N and Priest J (2017) Social Research: Paradigms in Action. London: John Wiley.
British Academy (2012) ‘Society counts’: A British academy position statement. Available at:
www.britac.ac.uk/policy/Society_Counts.cfm (accessed 26 July 2017).
Bulmerr M (2011) The place of quantification in the professional training of sociologists: Some
career reflections. In: Payne G and Williams M (eds) Teaching Quantitative Methods.
London: SAGE, pp. 49–65.
18 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

Bunge MA (1997) Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27: 410–465.
Clifford J and Marcus GE (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen RL, Hughes C and Lampard R (2011) The methodological impact of feminism: A troubling
issue for sociology? Sociology 45(4): 570–586.
Coleman JS (1986) Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of
Sociology 91: 1309–1335.
Crothers C (2008) The state of New Zealand sociology: An updated profile. New Zealand Sociology
23(1): 1–27.
Dale A (2009) Increasing the use of large scale social surveys in undergraduate dissertations in
the social sciences. A pilot project: Fill Research Report, ESRC End of Award Report, Report
no. RES-043–25–0002, archived by ESRC. Swindon: ESRC.
Dunn D and Waller DV (2000) The methodological inclinations of gender scholarship in main-
stream sociology journals. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-south Sociological Association 20(2):
239–257.
Eldridge J (2011) Half-remembrance of things past: Critics and cuts of old. Sociological Research
Online 16(3): 20.
Falkingham J (2009) Increasing the use of quantitative methods in social science undergradu-
ate dissertations. Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, Report no. RES-
043–25–009 , archived by ESRC. Swindon: ESRC.
Hedström P (2005) Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hedström P and Swedberg R (1998) Social mechanisms an introductory essay. In: Hedström P and
Swedberg R (eds) Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–31.
Hodgen J, Mcalinden M and Tomeii A (2014) Mathematical transitions: A report on the mathemat-
ical and statistical needs of students undertaking undergraduate studies in various disciplines.
Available at: http://furthermaths.org.uk/docs/HEA_Mathematical-transitions_June%202014.
pdf (accessed 26 July 2017).
Holmwood J (2014) Sociology’s past and futures: The impact of external structure, policy and
financing. In: Holmwood J and Scott J (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Sociology in Britain.
London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 588–610.
Kincaid H (1996) Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: Analyzing Controversies in
Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krueger J (2001) Null hypothesis significance testing: On the survival of a flawed method.
American Psychologist 56(1): 16–12.
Lipton P (1991) Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.
Macinnes J (2014) Teaching quantitative methods. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences 6:
21–25.
Madge J (1963) The Origins of Scientific Sociology. London: Tavistock.
Manicas P (1987) A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.
Oakley A (1998) Gender, methodology and people’s ways of knowing. Sociology 32(4): 707–731.
Parker J, Dobson A, Scott S, et al. (2008) International Benchmarking Review of Best Practice in
the Provision of Undergraduate Teaching in Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences.
Swindon: ESRC.
Payne G (2014a) Research methodology in sociology. In: Holmwood J and Scott J (eds) The
Palgrave Handbook of Sociology in Britain. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 413–437.
Payne G (2014b) Surveys, statisticians and sociology: A history of (a lack of) quantitative meth-
ods. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences 6(2): 74–89.
Williams et al. 19

Payne G and Williams M (2011) Introduction. In: Payne G and Williams M (eds) Teaching
Quantitative Methods: Getting the Basics Right. London: SAGE, pp. 1–8.
Payne G, Williams M and Chamberlain S (2004) Methodological pluralism in British sociology.
Sociology 38: 1153–1164.
Platt J (2012) Making them count: How effective has official encouragement of quantitative meth-
ods been in British sociology? Current Sociology 60(5): 690–704.
Posner M (2002) Social sciences under attack in the UK (1981–1983). La Biologie. Available at:
https://histoire-cnrs.revues.org/547
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2007) Subject Benchmarks: Sociology. London: QAA. Available
at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Subject-benchmark-statement-Sociology.
pdf (Accessed 26 July 2017).
Rosenau P (1991) Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scott J (2005) Sociology and its others: Reflections on disciplinary specialisation and fragmen-
tation. Sociological Research Online 10: 1.
Snow CP (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sokal A and Bricmont J (1998) Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books.
Von Wright G (1993) Two traditions. In: Hammersley M (ed.) Social Research: Philosophy,
Politics and Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 9–13.
Williams M (2000) Science and Social Science. London: Routledge.
Williams M, Collet C and Rice R (2004) Baseline Study of Quantitative Methods in British
Sociology. Birmingham and Durham, NC: C-SAP and BSA.
Williams M, Payne G and Sloan S (2016) Making sociology count: Some evidence and context in
the teaching of quantitative methods in the UK. In: McKie L and Ryan L (eds) An End to the
Crisis of Empirical Sociology? London: Routledge, pp. 171–186.
Williams M, Payne G, Hodgkinson L, et al. (2008.) Does British sociology count? Sociology stu-
dents’ attitudes toward quantitative methods. Sociology 42(5): 1003–1021.
Williams M, Sloan L, Cheung SY, et al. (2015) Can’t count or won’t count? Embedding quantita-
tive methods in substantive sociology curricula: A quasi-experiment. Sociology 50: 3435–
3452.

Author biography
Malcolm Williams is Professor and Co-Director of Cardiff Q-Step, Cardiff School of Social Sciences,
Cardiff University. He has research and published extensively in the area of quantitative pedagogy
for 15 years. In 2011, he edited (with Geoff Payne) the SAGE volume Teaching Quantitative
Methods. His other principal research interests are in the methodology and philosophy of the social
sciences, in particular objectivity, probability, and causality. His newest book is Key Concepts in the
Philosophy of Social Research (SAGE, 2016). Interests: quantitative pedagogy, methodology and
philosophy of the social sciences, migration, household formation, and dissolution.
Date submitted 17 August 2016
Date accepted 7 September 2017

Appendix 1
Table 8 summarises and compares the demographic of the samples in the UK the
Netherlands, and New Zealand. The sample in the UK was approximately 50% male and
20 Sociological Research Online 00(0)

50% female. The gender gap in respondents was larger in both the Netherlands and New
Zealand than in the UK. Almost 55% of the Netherlands sample were female and approx-
imately 57% of the New Zealand sample were female. Participants from the UK were
fairly evenly distributed across the age categories. The majority of respondents fell into
the youngest cohort; however, this may reflect the fact that this age bracket is the biggest.
A lenient age category was necessary as the survey was distributed under the auspices of
the British Sociological Association (BSA) and there was the possibility of young,
undergraduate student members responding. Similarly, the majority of respondents from
the Netherlands were aged 18–34. Meanwhile, approximately 40% of the New Zealand
sample were aged 40–54. For each of the countries, the majority of respondents were
employed on research and teaching contracts.

Table 8.  Comparison of demographic of samples in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and
New Zealand.

United Kingdom Netherlands New Zealand

Gender
 Male 51.3% 45.9% 42.9%
 Female 48.7% 54.1% 57.1%
Age (years)
 18–34 30.2% 71.2% 27.2%
 35–44 25.1% 12.1% 4.5%
 45–54 22.7% 8.1% 40.9%
 55+ 22.0% 8.1% 27.2%
Employment contract
  Research only 18.2% 18.2% 27.3%
  Research and teaching 74.5% 73.7% 50.0%
  Teaching only 3.7% 2.0% 0.0%
  Neither research nor teaching 3.7% 6.1% 22.7%