Current research

REPLICATION AS A RESEARCH TOOL—MIDDLETOWN REVISITED

In reviewing scientific litera­ture, researchers occasion­ally find that a study has raised such important issues—and has been so thoroughly and effec­tively constructed—that a replica­tion is desirable. As an example, sociologists Howard Bahr, Theo­dore Caplow, and Bruce Chadwick (1983) replicated the famous Mid-dletown studies conducted by Rob­ert and Helen Lynd (1929, 1937). The Lynds' remarkably productive research examined the effects of industrialization on the small mid-western city of "Middletown"— actually, Muncie, Indiana. They focused particularly on such topics as work, social class, power, fam­ily life, community activities, and religion (see Chapter 13).

Replications are taken for granted in the natural sciences. However, they present greater dif­ficulties for social science re­searchers, since the institution, community, or social system under study may have undergone signifi­cant changes over the years. If this is the case, then it may be mislead­ing to compare new data with the

original findings. Bahr and his col­leagues have reflected on the op­portunities and pitfalls inherent in such replications and have offered five guidelines for researchers who wish to utilize this technique:

1. Clearly establish the research design to be replicated.

2. Resist the temptation to include new topics absent from the original study.

3. When incorporating new topics seems justified, develop linkages to the past through techniques for reconstructing life histories (such as interviews in which people are asked to recall past events).

4. Retain the original wording used in questionnaires and inter­views whenever possible.

5. In replicating community stud­ies such as Middletown, pay close attention to the interplay between macro-level variables (such as population change or industrial output) and data on individual atti­tudes and experiences.

Replication can be a difficult challenge for sociologists. For ex-

ample, Bahr and his colleagues now regret that they changed the language of certain questions to make them more contemporary. The Lynds had asked Muncie resi­dents to respond to the statement: "Some men have much more money than others." In the replica­tion, it became: "Some people have much more money than oth­ers." While this revision reflects both the growing role of women in the economy and the importance of nonsexist language, it also makes it more difficult to compare current responses with the original data. Fortunately, such textual changes were largely avoided in the Mid­dletown replication.

Bahr, Caplow, and Chadwick have become staunch defenders of replication and have expressed alarm at the infrequent use of such studies in social scientific research. In their view (1983:262): "Replica­tion is not merely one method for the study of social systems. It is the essential method, and our science will never progress far until we learn to replicate when we can and innovate only when we must."

Tearoom Trade Sociologist Laud Humphreys (1970a, 1970b, 1975) published a pioneering and controversial study of homosexual behavior in which he described the casual homosexual en­counters between males meeting in public rest-rooms in parks. Such restrooms are sometimes called tearooms by homosexual men. As one conse­quence of this provocative research, the chancel­lor of the university where Humphreys was em­ployed terminated his research grant and teaching contract.