Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN

OPPORTUNITIES

Another approach to assessing equality of opportunity is to compare the attainment processes that link personal resources or investments to educational or occupational achievements for different social groups. Opportunities can be defined as unequal when the major avenues to advancement used by one group are not as effective for another. Researchers have frequently reported attainment process differences in the degree to which various population subgroups have been able to capitalize on advantages of family background or have experienced a high rate of return on investments in building relevant competencies or credentials. Some of this work has been criticized for possible shortcomings of methodology and interpretation.

Studies of social-group differences in an attainment process are important because they help to estimate the long-run prospects for closing existing achievement gaps (Featherman and Hauser 1978, Chap. 6). The prospects are positive if each subgroup has access to an attainment process that will translate improvements of personal and family resources into achievement outcomes, especially when programs and policies are available for investments in upgrading resources of groups that at present are weak. But if some groups are lagging in relevant skills and credentials, and are exposed only to attainment processes that provide poor returns in comparison with other groups, then the prospects are dim for closing existing gaps.

Studies of general social mobility processes have identified the special problems of African American males in translating any advantages from the family of origin into attainments in their own adult lives. For the white male population in this country, clear intergenerational processes have been evidenced in which sons can build upon a middleor upper-class family background, as shown by the strong relationship between father’s and son’s occupational status for whites over many recent decades. In contrast, through the 1960s, African-American males have not been as able to capitalize on any family advantages in building their occupational careers, as shown by the weak relationship for intergenerational mobility and the frequency with which substantial proportions of African-American males from nonmanual or white-collar households are downwardly mobile

and unable to benefit from their family advantages. There is some indication that since the 1970s race differences for males in the opportunities to benefit from any inheritance of family social-class advantages have closed (Farley and Allen 1987; Featherman and Hauser 1978.)

Race differences in the processes of school effects on achievement have been reported in two national studies by the sociologist James S. Coleman and his research coworkers. In a 1966 national study of public schools, differences in school resources and learning environments were found to have larger average effects on African-American students’ achievement than on white students’ achievement (Coleman et al. 1966). The result was interpreted as a differential sensitivity of disadvantaged students to school improvements, because these students from poor families relied more on good schools for their development of academic skills. A similar race difference in educational processes was found in the 1980s with national data from public and private high schools (Coleman and Hoffer 1987). African Americans, Latinos, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds were found to do better in Catholic schools than in public high schools, in terms of both higher test scores and lower dropout rates. It was argued that these students especially benefited from the greater academic demands that can be enforced by the sense of community established by Catholic schools, which compensates for family disadvantages of many of these students. Again, minority and disadvantaged students were found to be more responsive to changes in school environments that have effects on high school students’ achievement and completion rates. Other researchers have questioned the recent results on the grounds that key student/family self-selection variables were not controlled in the analyses of public–Catholic school differences and that the sizes of the race interaction effects were not impressive by conventional statistical standards (Alexander and Pallas 1985; McPartland and McDill 1982).

Research has indicated that race inequalities are currently much less evident in educational attainment processes than in occupational attainment processes. Analyses using appropriate statistical tests of the processes that yield important educational achievements—such as additional years of schooling and scholastic outcomes, including

grades and test scores—have found great similarities between African Americans and whites (Gottfredson 1981; Wolfle 1985). Thus, not only have African-American–white differences in the frequency of high school graduation and college education been diminishing, the processes that link social background and school input variations to educational achievements have become very similar for African Americans and whites. At the same time, race gaps in school test scores have been closing more slowly, and serious disparities persist in the level of financing and concentration of single-race and disadvantaged student bodies in schools attended by racial minorities, even though education attainment processes would translate improvements of such inputs into attainments for African Americans (Jaynes and Williams 1989).

However, major race and sex differences continue in the occupational domain regarding both the processes of attainment and the gaps in achievement. Labor-market disparities by race and sex are much more apparent than differences in educational opportunities, but the disparities are exhibited in complex patterns or processes according to individuals’ social-class position, labor-market location, career stage, and other factors (Farley and Allen 1987; Featherman and Hauser 1978; Jaynes and Williams 1989; Wilson 1987). The chances are equally good for African Americans and whites of each sex who are highly educated to gain entry to good jobs, but advancement opportunities to higher positions at later career stages are more likely to be missed by African Americans. At the same time, African-American male workers with less advanced credentials are much more likely to have periods of unemployment or reduced hours, and to be paid less when employed, than white males with equivalent years of schooling. The greatest race discrepancies are observed for poorly educated young African-American males, who are much more likely than comparable whites to be unemployed, to have dropped out of the labor force, or to report no annual earnings. William J. Wilson (1980) has developed a theory of the ‘‘declining significance of race’’ that considers the growing social-class gaps within the African-American population in occupational success, as well as the special difficulties faced by poorly educated African-Ameri- can males in urban racial ghettos, whom he views as ‘‘the truly disadvantaged’’ (Wilson 1987).

STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

While careful studies of residual differences and attainment process differences can document the existence of unequal opportunities, other research is required on specific interactions and practices in schools or labor markets to understand the actual barriers that unfairly inhibit individuals because of their sex, race, or social-class position. For education, research on differential access to specific components of schooling, studies of tracking and grouping policies in elementary and secondary schools, and examinations of financial aid practices in higher education have identified some specific structural barriers in educational opportunities.

A landmark study was conducted in response to a congressional request under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and published in 1966 with the title

Equality of Educational Opportunity. Also known as the ‘‘Coleman Report,’’ after the sociologist James S. Coleman who directed the research, it was both influential and controversial for the way it examined educational opportunities and for its major findings (Coleman et al. 1966). Based on a large national survey of students and schools at both elementary and secondary levels, the Coleman Report collected the most comprehensive data available at that time on equity issues in education. It was not satisfied to compare only the average school input resources experienced by different race and ethnic groups—such as textbooks, libraries and laboratories, per pupil expenditures, teacher qualifications, or class size. The Coleman Report also considered race and ethnic differences on student outcomes as measured by standardized tests in major subjects, and asked how different school components contributed to student learning, in order to weigh inequalities of school inputs by their importance for student outcomes. The simultaneous examination of school inputs, student outcomes, and their relationships to one another had not been attempted before in assessing equity issues, and the published results have been a continuing source of reanalysis and reinterpretation.

The Coleman Report did find large differences in test scores between white and most racial and ethnic minority groups that existed from the time students began school and were not reduced,

on the average, as students moved from grade 1 to grade 12. These differences in student outcomes could not be explained by variations in the school input factors measured by the Coleman Report surveys, because within each region no great disparities of school inputs appeared for different racial and ethnic groups, and these factors did not relate strongly to student outcomes in any case after family background and social-class factors were statistically controlled. In fact, when school factors were combined into three clusters for analy- sis—(1) instructional materials and resources, (2) teacher and staff characteristics, and (3) student body composition—the most important component in accounting for variations in student test scores net of family background was the attributes of fellow students. Thus, the large observed group differences in student outcomes were not found to be accounted for by existing variations in conventional school and teacher components, although attending a school with fellow students who were college-bound did seem to make a positive contribution to the learning environment.

Subsequent investigations have shown that improvements in school factors, such as smaller class size, better-qualified teachers, and well-di- rected extra resources, can actually make a significant difference for student learning (Burtless 1996; Jencks and Phillips 1998). But the general picture drawn by the Coleman Report has been confirmed of an educational system that does little to reduce the large racial and ethnic differences in academic test scores with which students begin elementary grades (Jencks et al. 1972; Puma et al. 1997).

The Coleman Report data did not measure within-school differences in educational resources and learning environments, and consequently was unable to analyze major barriers to equal opportunities from specific internal school practices, such as tracking and ability grouping. Other research has shown that when students are tracked into separate programs or separate courses according to their earlier test scores or grades, those in the lower-level groups are likely to encounter serious barriers to their educational growth and progress. Lower tracks and lower-level courses have been shown to offer weaker educational resources, such as fewer expert teachers and poorer educational climates with lower academic expectations, that can lead to lower average student achievement test scores and decreased probabilities of completing

high school and continuing education in college (Gamoran 1986; Hallinan 1988; Oakes 1985). Tracking is now seen as a major barrier to equal educational opportunities because tracking and ability grouping are very common practices in American schools, and minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students are much more likely to be assigned to the lower-level programs and courses within their schools (Oakes 1985).

Moreover, the educational resources available at the school level are thought to be more unequal for minorities and disadvantaged students at the present time than they were found to be in the 1966 Coleman Report assessments (Smith and O’Day 1991). Since the 1960s, demographic trends have created greater concentrations of poverty in large urban schools, and changes in funding support for public education in central city districts have reduced those districts’ relative ability to purchase adequate classroom supplies and materials, and to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers. In addition, trends in school desegregation, which produced increasing numbers of racially mixed schools with improved learning environments for minorities because of court decisions from 1954 through the 1970s, were reversed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when school segregation grew in most regions and in the nation as a whole (Orfield and Eaton, 1996). Consequently, school-level barriers to equal educational opportunities have worsened since the 1960s, because the changing urban demographics and negative fiscal trends have dramatically altered the student body composition and the quality of the teaching staff that the Coleman Report found to be the most important factors of a good school.

Barriers have been identified in college educational opportunities, which also may have gotten worse, especially for African-American males, in recent years. Minorities have long been underrepresented as students at four-year colleges, in scientific major fields, and in obtaining advanced degrees (Trent and Braddock 1987). Some of these gaps had been closing through the 1970s, but since that time, uniform progress is no longer evident and some actual downturns in minority enrollments and attainments have been recorded (Jaynes and Williams 1989; Miller 1995; Wirt et al. 1998)African-American and Latino students often encounter special problems in pursuing college

programs because of insufficient social and academic support on campus or inadequate prior educational experiences (Green 1989). Recent reversals in minority enrollments have been explained by increasing tensions related to race and ethnicity on some college campuses and to changes from grants to loans in many financial assistance programs which poor students are less likely to receive or use (Blackwell 1990).

STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO OCCUPATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

To help account for residual sex or race gaps in job success and in the career attainment process, research has identified specific structural barriers to sex equality and to racial equality in occupational opportunities.

Studies of the large average earnings differences between men and women workers show that very large gaps remain after statistically controlling on individual differences in input variables such as education and experience, but these gaps are substantially reduced by adding measures of each person’s occupation or occupational group. This result indicates that sex gaps in earnings have much of their source in the extreme job segregation by sex in the American labor market—many occupations are primarily filled by women or primarily filled by men—and the wage levels are much lower for ‘‘female’’ occupations (Treiman and Hartmann 1981). Since fully two-thirds of men and women would have to change jobs to achieve similar representation of each sex across occupations, full enforcement of antidiscrimination laws against unequal pay for men and women in the same occupation can achieve only modest improvements in wage differentials by sex. Other suggested approaches to reducing sex segregation of jobs and associated wage gaps—such as enriching the socialization experiences toward a wider range of career exposures for children and youth of both sexes, or incorporating policies of ‘‘comparable worth’’ that establish wage rates by job features, irrespective of sex or race of incumbents (Hartmann 1985; Marini 1989)—have not yet made large inroads.

To specify how occupational opportunities continue to be unequal for racial or ethnic minorities, research has identified structural barriers at each stage of the occupational career process.

Barriers can appear at the job candidate stage, when employers are recruiting the pool of candidates for job openings; at the job entry stage, when an individual is actually selected to fill a vacancy; and at the job promotion stage, when transfers are made within a firm to fill spots at higher levels (Braddock and McPartland 1987; Feagin and Feagin 1978; Marini 1989).

At the job candidate stage, qualified minorities of either sex may fail to learn about many desirable job openings because they are excluded from useful social networks that provide others with information about and contacts for particular employment opportunities. Employers find job candidates more frequently from walk-ins and friends of current employees (the result of informal social networks) than any other recruitment means for lowerand middle-level jobs. The social contacts used by many minorities are racially segregated networks that on the average are not as well tied to good job information as the social networks available to whites. This barrier to equal opportunities at the job candidate stage is partially kept in place by the continued racial segregation of the schools and neighborhoods that create many social networks and by the underrepresentation of minorities in the upper levels of firms, where informal information for friends and relatives about job openings is often best acquired (Crain 1970; Rossi et al. 1974).

At the job entry stage, otherwise qualified minorities are often not selected because of barriers of statistical discrimination and information bias. Employers who do not wish to invest much to obtain extensive information about job applicants will often use a group identifier, such as sex or race, in hiring decisions when they believe that traits on which subgroups may differ statistically predict job performance. For example, such ‘‘statistical discrimination’’ can occur when an employer selects a white over a minority applicant for a job requiring good academic skills, based on a belief in average racial group differences on academic test scores rather than on actual individual candidates’ differences in academic skills shown on tests administered or obtained by the employer during the screening process (Bielby and Baron 1986; Braddock et al. 1986; Thurow 1975).

Even when qualification data from individuals are relied upon in hiring decisions, other barriers

to equal opportunities occur due to ‘‘information bias’’ of data on minority candidates. References and recommendations from school or employment officials for African-American applicants may be viewed as less credible by white employers who are less familiar with an African-American school, a member of the African-American clergy, or an African-American firm, or who may be more wary of information provided by minority sponsors due to stigmas or stereotypes attached to these sources. Similarly, minority job applicants who grow up in communities that have high youth unemployment rates will be less able to satisfy prospective employers’ interests in previous employment experiences and references (Braddock and McPartland 1987).

At the job promotion stage, minorities may face unfair barriers due to internal recruitment methods or because they are poorly positioned within internal labor markets. However, findings from a national study indicate the potential benefits to minorities of seeking internal promotions: The average pay differential between African-Ameri- can and white workers is less for jobs filled from inside a firm than for jobs filled from outside for individuals of the same sex and education level, suggesting that unfair selection is reduced when employers process information on applicants’ actual job performance within their firm. On the other hand, the same study showed that unless an internal vacancy is widely advertised within a firm, whites are more likely to be sought out for available promotions (Braddock and McPartland 1987). Moreover, research has shown that minorities are less likely to have entered a firm on a career ladder that ordinarily leads to promotion opportunities, so they may never be eligible to compete for advancement through an internal labor market (Rosenfield 1980).

POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Governments and courts have established policies and practices in recent decades that are intended to eliminate race and sex discrimination and to ensure equality of opportunity. These range from the 1954 Supreme Court decision against segregated schools to the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the executive orders to establish affirmative action guidelines in employment (Burstein 1985; Jaynes and Williams 1989). However, in the

final decades of the twentieth century, major court decisions have stepped back from considerations of race in school attendance patterns, college admissions policies, and employment selection practices (Orfield and Eaton 1996; Orfield and Miller 1998). At the same time, the expectation of high performance in elementary and secondary schools by students regardless of race or ethnicity has become widespread national and state policy, as a common-core academic curriculum is being mandated for all learners. It has yet to be determined how testing of students will combine with higher standards to influence access to educational opportunities and the gaps in dropout rates and achievement scores.

Although it is difficult to distinguish the effects of one governmental action from those of another in improving the life chances of women and minorities, clear advances have been made that can be attributed to the combined impacts of various public policies for equal rights. For example, from 1970 to 1990 the race gaps in academic test scores of schoolchildren decreased between 25 and 50 percent for different age groups (Smith and O’Day 1991). Reductions in the race gaps in terms of years of school completed have been dramatic, especially among female students. Greater equity is also evident in some labor-market behaviors, including the distribution of occupations by race within sex groups. On the other hand, inequalities in the distribution of income have grown in recent years, with a much higher share going to the top earners; average racial improvements are not evident in employment rates and income levels of adult males; some stagnation or reversals have occurred in upward trends of minority test scores and college attainment rates; and extensive racial segregation of housing and schooling remains a dominant feature of American life. The increasing diversity of minority groups in this country will amplify issues of equality of opportunity that concern language and cultural background differences in the population (Harrison and Bennett 1995).

Controversy continues to accompany further efforts to sustain current policies and to institute new practices for equal opportunities. The differences are most evident on whether outcome-based policies are required to overcome systemic barri- ers—for instance, affirmative action programs that use guidelines and timetables—or whether efforts

should concentrate only on intentional discrimination or on specific aspects of the processes that inhibit equal rights (Levinger 1987).

(SEE ALSO: Affirmative Action; Discrimination; Education

and Mobility; Ethnicity; Equity Theory; Social Mobility;

Race)

Gamoran, Adam 1986 ‘‘Instructional and Institutional Effects of Ability Grouping.’’ Sociology of Education 59:185–198.

Gottfredson, Denise C. 1981 ‘‘Black–White Differences in the Educational Attainment Process: What Have We Learned?’’ American Sociological Review 46:542–557.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1974 Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Karl A., and Aaron M. Pallas 1985 ‘‘School Sector and Cognitive Performance.’’ Sociology of Education 58:115–127.

Bielby, William T., and James N. Baron 1986 ‘‘Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimination.’’ American Journal of Sociology 91:759–799.

Blackwell, James E. 1990 ‘‘Current Issues Affecting Blacks and Hispanics in the Educational Pipeline.’’ In Gail E. Thomas, ed., U.S. Race Relations in the 1980s and 1990s. New York: Hemisphere.

Braddock, Jomills H., II, and James M. McPartland 1987 ‘‘How Minorities Continue to Be Excluded from Equal Employment Opportunities: Research on Labor Market and Institutional Barriers.’’ Journal of Social Issues 43(1):5–39.

———, et al. 1986 ‘‘Applicant Race and Job Placement Decisions: A National Survey Experiment.’’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 6:3–24.

Burstein, Paul 1985 Discrimination, Jobs and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States Since the New Deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burtless, Gary, ed. 1996 Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

———, and Thomas Hoffer 1987 Public and Private High Schools. New York: Basic Books.

——— et al. 1966 Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Crain, Robert L. 1970 ‘‘School Integration and Occupational Achievement of Negroes.’’ American Journal of Sociology 75:593–606.

Farley, Reynolds, and Walter R. Allen 1987 The Color Line and the Quality of Life in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Feagin, J. R., and C. B. Feagin 1978 Discrimination American Style: Institutional Racism and Sexism. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser 1978 Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic Press.

Green, Madeleine F. 1989 Minorities on Campus: A Handbook for Enhancing Diversity. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

Hallinan, Maureen T. 1988 ‘‘Equality of Educational Opportunity.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 14:249–268.

Harrison, Roderick J., and Claudette E. Bennett 1995 ‘‘Race and Ethnic Diversity.’’ In Reynolds Farley, ed.,

State of the Union: America in the 1990s: vol. 2. Social Trends. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hartmann, Heidi I., ed. 1985 Comparable Worth: New Directions for Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Hauser, Robert M. 1993 ‘‘The Decline in College Entry Among African Americans: Findings in Search of Explanations.’’ In Paul M. Snideman, Philip E. Tetlock, and Edward G. Carmines, eds., Prejudice, Politics, and the American Dilemma. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Hedges, Larry V., and Amy Nowell 1999 ‘‘Changes in the Black–White Gap in Achievement Test Scores.’’

Sociology of Education 72:111–135.

Jaynes, Gerald David, and Robin M. Williams, Jr., eds. 1989 A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Jencks, Christopher, and Meredith Phillips, eds. 1998

The Black–White Test Score Gap. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Jencks, Christopher, et al. 1972 Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Levinger, George (ed.) 1987 ‘‘Black Employment Opportunities: Macro and Micro Perspectives.’’ Journal of Social Issues 43:1–156.

Levy, Frank 1995 ‘‘Incomes and Income Inequality.’’ In Reynolds Farley, ed., State of the Union: America in the 1990s: vol. 1. Economic Trends. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Marini, Margaret Mooney 1989 ‘‘Sex Differences in Earnings in the United States.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 15:343–380.

McPartland, James M., and Edward L. McDill 1982 ‘‘Control and Differentiation in the Structure of American Education.’’ Sociology of Education 55:65–76.

Miller, L. Scott 1995 An American Imperative: Accelerating Minority Educational Advancement. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Oakes, Jeannie 1985 Keeping Track. New Haven, Conn.:

Yale University Press.

Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro 1995 Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Orfield, Gary, and Susan E. Eaton 1996 Dismantling Desegregation. New York: New Press.

Orfield, Gary, and Edward Miller, eds. 1998 Chilling Admissions: The Affirmative Action Crisis and the Search for Alternatives. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Puma, M.J., N. Karweit, Price C., Ricciuti, A., Thompson, W., and Vaden-Kiernan, M. 1997. Prospects: Final report on student outcomes. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates, Inc.

Rosenfield, Rachel A. 1980 ‘‘Race and Sex Differences in Career Dynamics.’’ American Sociological Review

45:583–609.

Rossi, Peter H., Richard A. Berk, and Betty K. Eidson 1974 The Roots of Urban Discontent: Public Policy, Municipal Institutions and the Ghetto. New York: Wiley.

Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser 1980 ‘‘The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study of Social and Psychological Factors in Aspirations and Achievements.’’ In Alan C. Kerckhoff, ed., Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, vol. I. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Smith, Marshall S., and Jennifer O’Day 1991 ‘‘Educational Equality: 1966 and Now.’’ In Deborah Verstegen, ed., Spheres of Justice in American Schools. New York: Harper Business.

Thurow, Lester 1975 Generating Inequality. New York:

Basic Books.

Treiman, Donald J., and Heidi I. Hartmann, eds. 1981

Women, Work and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Trent, William T., and Jomills Henry Braddock II 1987 ‘‘Trends in Black Enrollment and Degree Attainment.’’ In John B. Williams, ed., Title VI Regulation of Higher Education: Problems and Progress. New York: Teachers College Press.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1969 Toward a Social Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wilson, William Julius 1980 The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—— 1987 The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——— 1996 When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.

Wirt, John, Tom Snyder, Jennifer Sable, Susan P. Choy, Yupin Baes, Janis Stennett, Allison Gruner, and Marianne Perie 1998. The Condition of Education 1998

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Wolfle, Lee M. 1985 ‘‘Postsecondary Educational Attainment Among Whites and Blacks.’’ American Educational Research Journal 22:501–525.

JOMILLS HENRY BRADDOCK II

JAMES M. MCPARTLAND

EQUILIBRIUM THEORY

See Cognitive Consistency Theories; Social

Dynamics.

EQUITY THEORY

See Social Justice.

ETHICS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH

The immediacy of subject matter in social science underscores the importance of ethical issues in research by social scientists. This is particularly true in sociology. A rather small percentage of sociologists use historical documents or cultural products as data. The majority rely upon interviews with actively cooperating subjects, records relating to persons still living or recently alive, unobtrusive observation of live actors, or participant studies within interacting groups. Sociological research typically focuses on relatively large study populations and poses questions relevant to many dimensions of individual and social life. Both the process and application of sociological inquiry may conceivably affect large numbers of subjects in an adverse manner. Thus, the question of ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong’’ in research has been a continual (though not always powerful or explicit) concern within the profession.

Ethics may be conceptualized as a special case of norms governing individual or social action. In any individual act or interpersonal exchange, ethics connotes principles of obligation to serve values over and above benefits to the people who are directly involved. Examination of ethical standards in any collectivity provides insights into its fundamental values; identification of ethical issue provides clues to its basic conflicts. This is as true of sociology as a profession as it is of other social systems.

The most abstract and general statements about ethics in sociological literature reflect broad agreement about the values that social inquiry should serve. Bellah (1983) writes that ethics constitutes an important, though typically implicit, topic in the thinking of sociology’s founders (such as Durkheim and Weber) and leading modern practitioners (such as Shils and Janowitz). Even while consciously striving to distinguish their emerging discipline as a science free of values and moralizing, the early sociologists appeared to have a distinct ethical focus. The discipline’s founders implied and sometimes stated that sociology necessarily involved ethical ends, such as identification of emerging social consensus or the development of guidelines for assessing social good. Modern sociologists have emphasized improvement of society’s understanding of itself as the discipline’s principal ethical end, as opposed to determining a specific direction or developing technology for social change. In the broadest sense, contemporary sociologists seem to consider the raising of consciousness as quintessentially ethical activity and social engineering by private or parochial interests as ethically most objectionable. In the phraseology of Edward Shils, this means contributing to ‘‘the self-understanding of society rather than its manipulated improvement’’ (Shils 1980, p. 76).

Dedication to advancement of society’s understanding of itself through diverse scientific approaches may comprise the fundamental ethic of sociology. A Code of Ethics published by the American Sociological Association (ASA) in 1989 (American Sociological Association 1989) gave concrete expression to this ethic. Concentrating primarily on research, the Code of Ethics emphasized three specific areas of concern: (1) full disclosure of motivations for and background of research; (2) avoidance of material harm to research subjects, with special emphasis on issues of confidentiality;

and (3) qualifications to the technical expertise of sociology.

The first area appeared concerned primarily with a fear among sociologists that agencies of social control (such as military or criminal justice units) may seek intelligence under the guise of social research. Thus, the code advised sociologists not to ‘‘misuse their positions as professional social scientists for fraudulent purposes or as a pretext for gathering intelligence for any organization or government.’’ The mandate for disclosure has implications involving relations among professionals, between professionals and research subjects, and between professionals and the public. Another provision of the code read, ‘‘Sociologists must report fully all sources of financial support in their publications and must note any special relation to any sponsor.’’ (p. 1)

The second area of concern in the code placed special emphasis on assurance of confidentiality to research subjects. It stressed the need for extraordinary caution in making and adhering to commitments. As if to recognize the absence of legal protection for confidentiality in the research relationship and to mandate its protection nevertheless, the code stated: ‘‘Sociologists should not make any guarantees to respondents, individuals, groups, or organizations—unless there is full intention and ability to honor such commitments. All such guarantees, once made, must be honored’’ (p. 2).

As a subject of professional ethics, the third area is extraordinary. Provisions mandating disclosure of purpose and assurance of confidentiality might appear in the code of ethics of any profession dealing regularly with human clients or subjects. But it is surprising to find, as a provision in the 1989 ASA Code of Ethics, the mandate that sociologists explicitly state the shortcomings of methodologies and the openness of findings to varying interpretation. The following quote illustrates provisions of this nature:

Since individual sociologists vary in their research modes, skills, and experience, sociologists should always set forth ex ante the limits of their knowledge and the disciplinary and personal limitations that condition the validity of findings. To the best of their ability, sociologists should . . . disclose details of their

theories, methods and research designs that might bear upon interpretation of research findings. Sociologists should take particular care to state all significant qualifications on the findings and interpretations of their research. (p. 2)

Themes in the 1989 Code of Ethics dealing with disclosure and confidentiality reflect widely shared values and beliefs in the profession. Historically, sociology has stood out among the learned professions as critical of the authority of established institutions such as governments and large business firms. But propositions about the limitations of theories and methodologies and the openness of findings to varying interpretation suggest conflict. In the late twentieth century, sociological methodologies encompassed both highly sophisticated mathematical modeling of quantitative data and observation and theory building based entirely on qualitative techniques. Acknowledgment of the legitimacy of these differences in an ethical principle reflects a strenuous attempt by sociology as a social system to accommodate subgroups whose basic approaches to the discipline are inconsistent with each other in important respects.

A more recent formulation of the ASA Code of Ethics, published in 1997 (American Sociological Association 1997), restates the basic principals of serving the public good through scientific inquiry and avoiding harm to individuals or groups studied. But a shift in emphasis appears to have occurred. The 1989 Code explicitly cited the danger of governmental or corporate exploitation of the sociologist’s expertise. The 1997 Code, though, stresses ethical challenges originating primarily from the researcher’s personal objectives and decisions.

The 1997 Code of Ethics, for example, contains a major section on conflict of interest. According to this section, ‘‘conflicts of interest arise when sociologists’ personal or financial interests prevent them from performing their professional work in an unbiased manner’’ (p. 6; emphasis added). A brief item on ‘‘disclosure’’ asserts an obligation by sociologists to make known ‘‘relevant sources of financial support and relevant personal or professional relationships’’ that may result in conflicts of interest vis-a-vis to employers, clients, and the public (p. 7).

The two most extensive sections in the 1997 Code are those on confidentiality and informed cnsent. The directives addressing confidentiality place extraordinary responsibility on the individual sociologist. Pertinent language states that ‘‘confidential information provided by research participants, students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so’’ (emphasis added). The Code further instructs sociologists to ‘‘inform themselves fully about all laws and rules which may limit or alter guarantees of confidentiality’’ and to discuss ‘‘relevant limitations on confidentiality’’ and ‘‘foreseeable uses of the information generated’’ with research subjects (p. 9). It is recommended that information of this kind be provided at the ‘‘outset of the relationship.’’ Sociologists are neither absolutely enjoined from disclosing information obtained under assurances of confidentiality nor given clear guidance about resolving pertinent conflicts. The Code of Ethics states:

Sociologists may confront unanticipated circumstances where they become aware of information that is clearly healthor life-threatening to research participants, students, employees, clients, or others. In these cases, sociologists balance the importance of guarantees of confidentiality with other priorities in [the] Code of Ethics, standards of conduct, and applicable law. (p. 9)

The section on informed consent, the most extensive in the 1997 Code of Ethics, reflects a frequent dilemma among sociologists. The basic tenets of informed consent as stated here approximate those in all fields of science. Obtaining true consent requires eliminating any element of undue pressure (as might occur in the use of students as research subjects) or deception regarding the nature of the research or risks and benefits associated with participation. In social research, however, statement of the objectives of an investigation may affect attitudes and behavior among research subjects in a manner that undermines the validity of the research design. Recognizing this possibility, the Code acknowledges instances when deceptive techniques may be acceptable. These include cases where the use of deception ‘‘will not be harmful to research participants,’’ is ‘‘justified by the study’s prospective scientific, educational, or applied value,’’ and cannot be substituted for by alternative procedures (p. 12).

A review of historical developments, events, and controversies of special importance to sociologists in the decades preceding the 1989 and 1997 Codes of Ethics promotes a further appreciation of the concerns they embody. Perhaps the most far-reaching development in this era was the introduction of government funding into new areas of the sociological enterprise. In sociology, as in many areas of science, government funding provided opportunities to expand the scope and sophistication of research, but it created new ethical dilemmas and accentuated old ones.

Increased government funding created interrelated problems of independence for the sociological researcher and anonymity for the research subject. A report by Trend (1980) on work done under contract with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) illustrates one aspect of this problem. Possessing a legal right to audit HUD’s operations, the General Accounting Office (GAO) could have examined raw data complete with individual identifiers despite written assurances of confidentiality to the subjects by the research team. Sensitivity on the part of the GAO and creativity by the sociologists averted an involuntary though real ethical transgression in this instance. But the case illustrates both the importance of honoring commitments to subjects and the possibility that ethical responsibilities may clash with legal obligations.

Legal provisions designed explicitly to protect human subjects emerged in the 1970s. Regulations developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) require that universities, laboratories, and other organizations requesting funds establish institutional review boards (IRBs) for protection of human subjects. The 1997 ASA Code of Ethics makes frequent reference to these boards as a resource for resolution of ethical dilemmas.

Sociologists, however, have not always expressed confidence in the contributions of IRBs. One commentary (Hessler and Freerks 1995) argues that IRBs are subject to great variability in protecting the rights of research subjects at the local level. Others contend that deliberations of these boards take place in the absence of appropriate standards or methods of analysis. The expertise and concerns of IRBs may not apply well to

actual risks posed by sociological research methods. Biomedical research, the primary business of most IRBs, potentially poses risks of physical injury or death to the research subject. Except in extraordinary circumstances, sociological techniques expose subjects at worst to risks of embarrassment or transient emotional disturbance. IRB requirements often seem inappropriate or irrelevant to sociology. In the words of one commentator, the requirement by IRBs that researchers predict adverse consequences of proposed studies encourages sociologists to engage in exercises of ‘‘futility, creativity, or mendacity’’ (Wax and Cassell 1981, p. 226).

Several instances of highly controversial research have helped frame discussion of ethics among sociologists. Perhaps most famous is the work of Stanley Milgram (1963), who led subjects to believe (erroneously) that they were inflicting severe pain on others in a laboratory situation. This experiment, which revealed much about the individual’s susceptibility to direction by authority figures, was said by some to present risk of emotional trauma to subjects. Milgram’s procedure itself seemed to duplicate the manipulative techniques of authoritarian dictators. Distaste among sociologists for Milgrom’s procedure helped crystallize sentiment in favor of public and professional scrutiny of research ethics.

The Vietnam era saw increasing suspicion among sociologists that government might use its expertise to manipulate populations both at home and abroad. A seminal event during this period was the controversy over a U.S. Army–funded research effort known as Project Camelot. According to one commentator, Project Camelot aimed at ascertaining ‘‘the conditions that might lead to armed insurrections in . . . developing countries so as to enable United States authorities to help friendly governments eliminate the causes of such insurrections or to deal with them should they occur’’ (Davison 1967, p. 397). Critical scrutiny by scholars, diplomats, and congressional committees led to cancellation of the project. But provisions in the1989 Code of Ethics on disclosure and possible impacts of research clearly reflect its influence.

The end of the Cold War and increasing litigiousness among Americans may help explain the shift in emphasis between the 1989 and 1997