What are the differences between quantitative and qualitative approach to social research?
What is a hypothesis in social scientific research? What is a variable and give at least two examples. What is meant by the “relationship between two variables”?
What are the first three stages of the research process, according to your textbook?
What is ethnography (interpretive approach)? Give examples of what an ethnographer might study, explain why you think so.
Open up the attached file and choose two research questions, from the list, you would want to study if you were a sociologist. Why are these questions interesting to you (one paragraph for each of the two you chose)?
What method of data collection would you use to study one of these research question (one question you chose in #5)? why?
What do you think you would find if you conducted this research?
The job of religion in the American republic has been a wellspring of discussion since the country's origin. Discussions are especially furious when they concern strict freedom and the correct connection among chapel and state. Contentions on these inquiries are regularly encircled in the light of the Founders' expectations, yet lamentably, their perspectives are frequently misshaped. Did America have a Christian Founding? Two prevalent responses to this question—"obviously not!" and "Completely!"— both mutilate the Founders' perspectives. There is in certainty a lot of proof that America's Founders were impacted by Christian thoughts, and there are numerous manners by which the Founders' perspectives may educate contemporary political and lawful contentions. At its most primary level, this war over thoughts is over the spot of religion in open life. As of late, a few people have utilized the idea of "partition of chapel and state" as a guideline to dispense with strict points of view from open spots and government funded instruction. These individuals stress that our own is a "pluralistic" culture. (Walch, 45) However, others fight that religion, and explicitly the Bible and Christianity, has a significant task to carry out in our political framework and open issues. Because of these two contradicting sees, there keeps on being a discussion about the best possible spot of religion in the general population square. To settle the debate, something must be thought about the establishment whereupon our administration is assembled. Realizing how something is structured is vital to its activity. For instance, it is impulsive to empty molasses into the gas tank of a vehicle. Inward burning motors are not intended to run on molasses. Likewise, it is basic to have a legitimate comprehension of how our republican type of government is intended to work. At exactly that point can the opportunities ensured by the Constitution of the United States be kept up. (Walch, 45) As per the individuals who answer "obviously not!" America's Founders were guided by common thoughts and self, class, or state interests. These researchers don't deny that the Founders were strict, yet they fight that they were generally deists—i.e., people who dismiss numerous Christian conventions and who figure God doesn't meddle in the issues of men and countries. For example, student of history Frank Lambert composes that "[the] noteworthiness of the Enlightenment and Deism for the introduction of the American republic, and particularly the connection among chapel and state inside it, can barely be exaggerated." Similarly, University of Chicago law educator Geoffrey Stone affirms that "deistic convictions assumed a focal job in the surrounding of the American republic" and that the "Establishing age saw religion, and especially religion's connection to government, through an Enlightenment focal point that was profoundly distrustful of customary Christianity." Virtually indistinguishable cases are made by Edwin Gaustad, Steven Waldman, Richard Hughes, Steven Keillor, David Holmes, Brooke Allen, and numerous others. (Walch, 55) Notwithstanding affirming that the Founders were deists, these creators normally fight that they surrendered their predecessors' narrow minded way to deal with chapel state relations and grasped strict freedom. They frequently surrender that a few Founders figured community specialists should bolster religion yet contend this is immaterial as Jefferson's and Madison's conviction that there ought to be a high mass of division among chapel and state was composed into the Constitution and strengthened by the First Amendment. As we will see, there are huge issues with this story. The second response to this inquiry is offered by prevalent Christian essayists, for example, Peter Marshall, David Manuel, John Eidsmoe, Tim LaHaye, William J. Federer, David Barton, and Gary DeMar. They battle that in addition to the fact that America had a Christian Founding, however for all intents and purposes the entirety of the Founders were sincere, customary Christians who intentionally drew from their strict feelings to respond to most political inquiries. (Macleod, 76) To help their case, these essayists are enamored with discovering strict citations from the Founders. The standard is by all accounts that if a Founder articulates anything strict, whenever in his life, he considers a conventional or even fervent Christian Founder. Utilizing this approach, Tim LaHaye closes, for example, that John Adams was "profoundly dedicated to Jesus Christ and the utilization of Biblical standards in administering the country," and George Washington, in the event that he was alive today, "would unreservedly connect with the Bible-accepting part of fervent Christianity that is having such a positive impact upon our country." . (Marty,75) This methodology prompts comparatively terrible history. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he broadly proposed that the First Amendment made a "mass of division between Church and State." This allegory lay torpid concerning the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause statute until 1947, when Justice Hugo Black took advantage of it as the authoritative proclamation of the Founders' perspectives on chapel state relations. (Marty,65) As engaging as the divider allegory is to contemporary promoters of the severe partition of chapel and state, it darkens definitely more than it enlightens. Leaving aside the way that Jefferson was in Europe when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were composed, that the letter was a significantly political archive, and that Jefferson utilized the illustration just once in his life, it isn't evident that it reveals helpful insight upon Jefferson's perspectives, considerably less those of his undeniably increasingly conventional partners. Jefferson gave calls for supplication and fasting as legislative head of Virginia, and in his amendment of Virginia's resolutions, he drafted bills stipulating when the representative could choose "long stretches of open fasting and embarrassment, or thanksgiving" and to rebuff "Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers." As an individual from the Continental Congress, he suggested that the country embrace a seal containing the picture of Moses "expanding his hand over the ocean, caus[ing] it to overpower Pharaoh," and the witticism "Insubordination to dictators is submission to God." He shut his subsequent debut address by urging all Americans to go along with him in looking for "the support of that Being in whose hands we are, who driven our ancestors, as Israel of old… ." (Botting, 43) And two days in the wake of finishing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he went to faith gatherings in the U.S. Legislative center, where he heard John Leland, the incomparable Baptist pastor and adversary of strict foundations, lecture. (Richey, 87) The fact of the matter isn't that Jefferson was a devout man who needed a relationship among chapel and state. His private letters clarify that he was not a conventional Christian, and his open contentions and activities show that he supported a stricter partition among chapel and state than for all intents and purposes some other Founder. (Botting, 37) Yet even Jefferson, in any event in his activities, didn't endeavor to totally expel religion from people in general square, and what Jefferson didn't totally avoid, most Founders grasped. This point might be delineated in an assortment of ways, yet an especially helpful exercise is to take a gander at the primary Congress, the body that made the First Amendment. One of Congress' first demonstrations was to consent to designate and pay congressional clergymen. Not long after doing as such, it reauthorized the Northwest Ordinance, which held that "Religion, ethical quality, and information being important to great government and the joy of humanity, schools and the methods for instruction will always be supported." (Richey, 43) So did America have a Christian Founding? History is entangled, and we ought to consistently be suspicious of straightforward responses to troublesome inquiries. As we have seen, there is valuable little proof that the Founders were deists, needed religion avoided from people in general square, or wanted the severe division of chapel and state. (Richey, 43) On the other hand, they recognized themselves as Christians, were affected in significant ways by Christian thoughts, and by and large idea it suitable for metro specialists to support Christianity. What do these realities mean for Americans who grasp non-Christian religions or no confidence by any stretch of the imagination? In spite of the fact that the Founders were significantly affected by Christianity, they didn't structure a protected request just for individual adherents. They expressly disallowed strict tests for government workplaces, and they were focused on the suggestion that all people ought to be allowed to venerate God (or not) as their souls direct. (Macleod, 76) The Founders trusted it reasonable for the national and state governments to energize Christianity, however this may never again be prudential in our undeniably pluralistic nation. However the Constitution doesn't order a common commonwealth, and we ought to be careful about law specialists, lawmakers, and scholastics who might take religion from the general population square. We ought to unquestionably dismiss contentions that America's Founders planned the First Amendment to disallow impartial projects that help religious social assistance offices, strict schools, and so forth. At last, we overlook at our danger the Founders' knowledge that majority rule government requires an ethical people and that confidence is a significant, if not crucial, support for profound quality. Such confidence may well thrive best without government support, however it ought not need to prosper despite government antagonistic vibe.>