| Guiding Thought Question: When trying to better understand the social behavior of a group, whose insights would you seek? That of a native to the group or the insights of a researcher? What are the positives and negatives of each perspective? Today's Learning Objective: Students will examine the ways in which sociological can be used to better human society by examining examples of prior sociologists and exploring current trends in human study. |  |
|
20 Comments
Ham
1/14/2020 07:37:19 am
I personally would speak to a native of the group, to get a more authentic and real perspective. However, the information I would receive would be bias. If I spoke to to a researcher, this strengthens the imperiality, but I lose the first hand experience information.
Jasper
1/14/2020 07:37:21 am
I personally would rather go to a native of the group, it’s first hand accounts, and it just feels more reliable than a researcher. The cons could be language barriers, or just a general different social queue.
Brynna Oxley
1/14/2020 07:37:53 am
I would look at both perspectives and draw a conclusion from both sets of data provided. The positives of looking at the native perspective is you would be hearing from a person that experiences the social behavior everyday and knows it firsthand but they may have a bias of some kind that may corrupt the data, like something that happens in the group and is seen as normal but to people outside it is more abnormal. And while a researcher gives an unbiased perspective, they don’t actually know what goes on every day in that group because they are not a part of it.
Skipper
1/14/2020 07:38:49 am
I would seek the one native to the group. The positives of that is they are familiar with the group and know the history and the present, negatives are they are only for the group and do not really have experience with other groups. The positives of a researcher is you get another perspective and a negative is that they might not be as familiar to the group as the native would be.
Ferro
1/14/2020 07:40:44 am
I would look at the researcher's point of view.
Karson
1/14/2020 07:41:00 am
I guess I would seek both forms of insight to get the best information possible, it would be positive to see all sides to come up with a hypothesis. The negatives to just get one insight is solely based on that one piece of information would limit your knowledge.
Weaver-Wagner
1/14/2020 07:41:30 am
I would seek the insight of a researcher because the natives will be biased to what image they portray to those asking what their social behaviors are like.
Katherine
1/14/2020 07:45:44 am
A native knows best what their own social behaviors are. They experience them all the time and know a lot of things about themselves that outsiders don't know or don't understand.
Reavis
1/14/2020 07:47:46 am
Researcher? Some positives unbiased and negatives are they don't know the reasoning for it.
Fatima
1/14/2020 07:57:41 am
I would seek the insights of someone native to the group because they are more familiar with the area and know more about it. One negative thing to this is that a native person might be more biased.
Dylan
1/14/2020 07:58:00 am
I'd seek a professional whose knows about social groups. I'd seek someone who has seen many social groups and cultures and can compare them. I think it'd also help if you were to seek a natives perspective as well because they can give you a different opinion.
Anderson
1/14/2020 09:00:29 am
Native: They have an authentic perspective but not removed from the situation
Grace Belter
1/14/2020 09:01:56 am
Yestlund
1/14/2020 09:02:39 am
I think its important to so both. The professional and the native group both have different bias and experiences.
Griffithdor
1/14/2020 09:03:42 am
I would talk to the native group to get more information on social behaviors. It would be the information straight from the source without any opportunity for miscommunication or incorrect interpretation. However, it could be very helpful to talk to a researcher who is (hopefully) an unbias source of information about the culture and mindset with a breakdown of behaviors in a scientific way, but they can be bias and misinterpret things. With the native, it would be more of an experience.
Jackson
1/14/2020 09:05:18 am
I would go to a native for a first hand perspective. I would probably go to multiple people to possibly get different perspectives. It’s better to get direct information rather than to have someone else get it and tell it to you, usually the information becomes distorted as it’s passed down.
pep
1/14/2020 09:09:58 am
i would personally look at both groups but focus on the native of the groups. i'd lok closely at the non native as well to see how they interact with eachother and also look at how lng they have been there because sometimes there can be non natives that know more than the natives. the positives of studying natives only could be that they have deeper insights and deeper culture values.
Greg
1/15/2020 01:50:36 pm
I would talk to the natives because they know the hows and whys of their culture and it’s part of them
Jackdaw
1/15/2020 01:52:31 pm
native of the group. They have more insight into unspoken communications and history of the group
Kinlee
1/15/2020 01:57:48 pm
I would go to a complete native of the group so they know a lot more about the groups I would say the negatives would be that they possibly don’t know the complete doings of each group as well as being bias to their size and personal group Leave a Reply. |
Social Science Course ForumWelcome to the Forum! Here is where you will be answering your daily warm-up questions. Please do not enter your last name for privacy reasons, and you may use a nickname if you would like (Just make sure Mr. Tredinnick is aware of the nickname you are using). Write out thoughtful responses to the forums on the days they are assigned. If you miss a day please take it upon yourself to complete the Forum you missed. Each Forum has the targeted Learning Objective(s) there so you can see what the focus of the day's class will be. Archives
May 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed