Co-operation may be defined as pooling of resources or working of different individuals or groups together for the achievement of common objectives. Having in mind competition and conflict we should not think that co-operation is impossible among the human beings. Co-operation is one of the basic social processes. Many co-operators may not desire common objects to be achieved and their motives may be different, but the process of co-operation is there. There are people, who cooperate because they want to be helpful to others, while others may be having personal interests and still others may be interested in monetary gains. So it is not wholly correct to say that common desire is the .only purpose behind co-operation. For instance, co-operation of teacher and students in an educational institution is not due to common objectives, but they hive quite different objectives. The teacher co-operates because he is paid and the students, on the other hand, want to get 'knowledge. However, co-operation is an important social process, because without co-operation the structure of society would have not come into existence. The group life would have been impossible without co-operation. The cooperation among the members of the family--infant and mother's co-operation, husband and wife's cooperation is the web of 'fatuity group' and it 'perpetuates the existence of life. The noncooperation of mothers with their children would have made the perpetuation of human race impossible. The same is true in the case of animal life--cooperation is found even among animals.
Culture has a big hand in patronizing co-operation as a social process and helps in socializing the individuals to be co-operative in different social contacts. Even religious institutions advocate co-operation with the members of family, neighbors and playmates. The public co-operates with the government in political, economic and social fields. The casting of votes in general election is also co-operation on the part of public with the government. So in order to keep harmony, peace and order, unity and cohesion in social institutions, social structure and social organizations of communities and society as a whole, co-operation is an utmost necessity.

FORMS OF CO-OPERATION 

There are different forms of co-operation which are discussed as under;
i. Informal and Formal Co-operation. When an old, blind man is helped by a passer-by in crossing the road, then we attribute this type of co-operation as informal, because there are no set rules and regula-tions in this form of interactional process. This informal co-operation can also be attributed as non-contractual co-operation, i.e., without any contract. But, on the other hand, co-operation of teacher and taught, bankers and customers is a formal or contractual co-operation. There are prescribed rules and regulations to social process. In the same way Multipurpose Co-operative Societies, Agricultural Farming Co-operative Societies, in the field of agricultural production, procuring of seeds, fertilizers and sale of products etc., are types of formal cooperation.
ii. Direct and Indirect Co-operation. Direct co-operation comes into existence, when two or more .individuals jointly performs the same or similar jobs. For instance, in agriculture the farmers help one another in performing different jobs, i.e., harvesting, thrashing, plowing etc, which enables them to perform work efficiently. This type of co-operation is called direct co-operation. The indirect co-operation takes place when different individuals co-operate to perform different tasks for achieving the same object. As we find in different industrial establishments like automobile where there is division of labor and each one co-operates in the production of automobile by performing different tasks.
iii. Competitive Co-operation or Co-operative Competition. Certain groups co-operate to compete effectively as in cases of sports we find that different individuals co-operate with one another to form a team of football, hockey, cricket etc. to compete with another team effectively. The success of team through this co-operation is the success of the members of the team. Two teams while playing, i.e., competing with each other also co-operate with each other by abiding rules of the game.
iv. Antagonistic Co-operation or Co-operative Conflict. Cooperation may exist between antagonistic groups. For instance, an organization or a union of employees has to co-operate on certain working conditions with the Directors of an industrial unit or employers, because this type of cooperation is indispensible and both parties cannot exist without it. In the same way, in political field the antagonistic or opposing parties have to make coalition for establishing ministry or government in the country. In the same way, the two antagonistic blocks like Russian and the American have co-operated in signing "Nuclear Test Ban" to achieve world peace. In the same way, certain groups co-operate to intensify conflict, i.e., the co-operation of laborers through "Labor Union" for strike and co-operation of employers for lock-out against laborers are the examples of co-operation for conflict.
v. Subordinate Co-operation. There may be co-operation from the minority or subordinate groups towards superior groups. In the case of slavery the slave has to co-operate with his master. In the same way, Hindus and Muslims are minorities in Pakistan and India respectively and they have had to co-operate with the majority group in many respects in order to live as peaceful citizens in their respective countries. This co-operation is due to compulsion and does not occur due to sweet will of the minority group. The same is the case of "Negroes" in the United States of America as they have to co-operate with the majority, i.e., White Americans.
These forms and extent of co-operation mentioned above vary from institution to institution and society to society.

advertisement
        

EFFECTS OF CO-OPERATION

There are many effects of cooperation on the structure and functioning of human society, e.g.,
i. The family system, the mosque, the church, group life and the economic system are the result of co-operation. Had there been no formal or informal co-operation, the life would have been miserable and without any charm. The state, group life, and culture are the outcome of co-operation.
ii. The security of persons and groups is possible due to co-operation. In community life the services of an individual are reciprocated by the others. Different persons have various roles to perform in the socio-economic order. They can depend on one another in need due to consensus of opinion regarding co-operation.
iii. The element of co-operation is always found in human life, even in the extreme cases of conflict, i.e., war between two or more nations. If there is no co-operation between individuals, this world may turn into hell. The prediction in human behavior, business regulations, government functions, socialization of the new generation, and transmission of culture and personality development would be an impossible task without co-operation among human beings.
Co-operation and conflict are the basic social processes of social life. These interactional processes are present in every sphere of human life in one or the other form. The study, of co-operation and conflict processes is important for the students of sociology. Such a study is theoretically fruitful and pragmatically useful from social action point of view.

Competition as a social process found in every field of human life. Wherever there is interaction among different individuals and groups there is an element of competition. Competition may be called as a struggle between two or more individuals, who are striving to get something which is relatively limited. Whenever the desired goods and services are in abundance to satisfy the needs of each and every individual, the competition may not exist. For instance, under normal circumstances there is no competition for air, water, sunshine etc., which are the free gifts of nature and available in abundance. But under abnormal circumstances
When certain persons are in a desert or sea, there may be competition for getting scarce quantity of drinking water. Thus the underlying factor for competition is the scarcity of certain goods and services which are valued by groups and individuals. The competition refers to the pursuits of goals by individuals or groups the attainment of which depends upon other individuals or groups. The objects perused are limited and the demand exceeds supply of those objects. Competition is goal oriented. The primary concern is directed towards the objects rather than the persons who are competing. Competition is a continuous process until the goal is either achieved or lost. The competition could be direct and continuous, or indirect and unconscious. Competition is an indirect and impersonal process in which personal antagonism, awareness of the identity of the competitors and rivalry do not take place. Due to progress in technology and mechanization the competition among individuals and groups is a bare necessities, it is changing towards improving the respective status and prestige. This is true in those societies where economic system is efficient enough to supply much more than necessities of mere survival. The members of these societies try to compete for a higher social status. Competition is present in every sphere of life. Even the house-mates compete with one another. We find competition in. the fields of business, religion, civil service, military service, art, science, play and recreation etc. As long as there are limited resources and unlimited human wants, the process of competition will continue to exist in one way or the other.


           

RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION
  We should not take for granted that competition is a continuous and universal process. Human competition exists as it is defined by the prevailing culture and restricted by the social control. For instance, in Western culture it is proper that several persons anxious to marry a woman may compete, but in a society like Pakistan this type of competition is not encouraged. We find such type of social control (formal or informal) in the form of rules and regulations, mores and folkways, laws and taboos etc., for competition. Freedom of competition is a relative term; in fact it may not exist. For instance, in the United States of America, if a fair-competition is advocated that does not mean that everybody is treated fairly. For example, `Negroes' are not allowed (in some of the States) to compete for certain jobs reserved for the Whites. There is also discrimination in the fields of education, religion, recreation etc. in the U.S.A. In the same way, in Pakistan there is free competition, however, women are not allowed to compete for different jobs with the male population. At the same time, it would be true to say that real culture is something else, while the ideal culture in the field of economic competition is quite different. In economic field we advocate competition as the rule of the day, but it is defied (resist openly) in everyday human activities. There is no pure competition among the laborers, as they organize themselves into different organizations like "Labor Union" and decide not to accept wages below a certain level. In the same way, big industrialists achieve consensus of opinion through "gentle-men's agreement", i.e., not to lower the prices of products from a certain level. In the same way, healthy competition is also avoided through monopoly in economic activities. The culture may intensify the competition for certain goods which are having scarcity and prestige value. There are certain cultures in which competition is given importance. For example, American culture is based upon competition, while certain tribes of Red Indians do not encourage competition. FORMS OF  

COMPETITION
The following are different forms of competition in society;
i. Personal and Impersonal competition takes place in a society when the individuals or groups competing with one another also know one another and the competition is face to face. For instance, the election for the office-bearers among the college or university students is personal competition. As it is face to face and the competitors are conscious of the presence of one another. In the same way, two lovers to win the hand of a woman engage themselves in personal competition as they are conscious of each other in the race. The competition for the posts of Federal Public Service Commission is an example of impersonal competition. In the same way, students trying to top in B.A. examination of the Punjab University or Peshawar University are impersonal competitors, because they do not know one another. At the same title the competitors are not, in most of the cases, striving consciously to defeat their rivals.
ii. Relative and Absolute Competition. An absolute competition can be the competition in which only solitary competitor is ultimately declared successful among two or several competitors. For instance, there can be only President of' Pakistan from amongst two or more competitors. Some is the case of Mr. Universe, Mr. Pakistan or Mr. India. It means that the absolute result should be in favor of a solitary victor. The competition of Rustam-i-Pakistan is also an example of absolute competition, in which only one wrestler is declared as Rustam or Champion of Pakistan and all other competitors have to fight to compete or accept defeat.
Relative competition, on the other hand, is different from absolute competition. For instance, everybody is trying to get wealthy or rich, but one is not supposed to collect the wealth of the whole country or world. There are so many rich people and still the competition. For the richness is rampant. This form of competition is known as relative competition.
iii. Formal or Informal Competition and intra/Inter Group Competition. These terms are self-explanatory. Formal' or informal, intra or inter-group competitions exist both in rural and urban areas of Pakistan. Their intensity and nature vary in both the sections of population.

COMPETITION—IT’S FUNCTION AND RESULTS
1. Competition is a social process. It affects social structure and the pattern of culture. The establishment of industries, special distribution of different groups and individuals are the outcome of competitive forces.
2. Invention and efficiency in every field of social interaction has resulted from competition. There are cases when the people even lose efficiencies, but the progress in material and non-material cultures has been enhanced due to competition.
3. Through democratic spirit of competition certain individuals and groups are restricted to become dominant and monopolist. Its aim is to provide chances to compete in social, political and economic life. It is an admitted fact that in the absence of competition groups and individuals belonging to upper social classes will have privileges in socio-economic activities over other classes and individuals.
To conclude, it would not be out of place to mention that in most of the cases healthy personal competition ultimately leads to conflicts, which indirectly raptures all the cordial and healthy competitive relations. However, it is up to the competitors to observe the rules and regulations of the competition. If these rules and regulation as are not strictly observed it can cause the disassociate form of interaction among the individuals, groups, or societies. Healthy competition in a community is a sign of progress, prosperity and advancement for the individuals and groups.

The interaction can be measured through frequency, duration, intensity and focus of the interacting persons.

• Frequency :The number of times the event is repeated in a given period of time is called frequency. More the frequency, stronger the level of interaction.

• Duration :The time period measured in minutes, hours or days which indicate the period of interaction is called duration. Greater the duration of interaction more the interacting persons accept the impressions or vice versa.

• Intensity :The passions of the interacting persons indicate their involvement (liking/disliking) with each other. More the interaction is intense more the passionate feeling about each other develop.

• Focus: Interaction cannot be without an event which has commonality for the participants. This commonality makes the interaction more effective and the participants focus on the point of their interest with great concentration.

The individuals interact with each other through language following different techniques of communication. It is the interaction that make link between individuals develop groups communities and societies. The young‘s are socialized through the process of social interaction. Interaction makes the human society dynamic, active, participating, cooperating, and competitive or there can be a situation of conflict, all this is interaction.

DEFINITION of Interaction
Social interaction as defined by Sociologists:
1. Sorokin has defined as ―Social interaction is a process which influences the overt or covert behavior or state of mind of individual.
2. Petrek defined as ―Social interaction is a social event that changes the behavior and attitude of the people who are interacting with each other.
3. Merill defined as ―Social interaction is the general process in which two or more persons are in meaningful contacts as a result of which their behavior is modified even slightly.

EXAMPLES

1. Student teacher relationship
2. Give and take between shopkeeper and customer
3. Conversation on telephone between two persons
4. Communication through letters, books, magazines or any other written material

ESSENTIALS OF INTERACTION

1. Two or more persons.
2. Reciprocate relationship between individuals
3. Acceptance or rejection of internal or external situation and change there in.

Which  perspective is the best?
This question cannot be answered, for none is "right" or "wrong," but each is a different way of looking at society. Just as international relations can be viewed either as a state of war interrupted by intervals of peace or as a state of peace interrupted by intervals of war, so society may be viewed either as a condition of cooperation containing elements of conflict or as a condition of conflict containing elements of cooperation. Thus each perspective views society from a different vantage point, asks different questions, and reaches different conclusions. Evolutionists focus upon the similarities in changing societies; interactionists focus upon the actual social behavior of persons and groups; functionalists focus more heavily upon value consensus, order, and stability; conflict theorists focus more heavily upon inequality, tension, and change. For example, in the study of class inequality, evolutionists look at the historical develop-ment of class inequalities in different societies; interactionists study how classes are defined and how people perceive and treat members of their own class and of other classes; functionalists note how class inequality operates in all societies to distribute tasks and rewards and to keep the system operating; conflict theorists focus upon how class inequality is imposed and maintained by dominant classes for their own advantage and at the expense of the less privileged.
For most topics of study, there are some aspects for which each of the perspectives can be useful. For example, consider the development of the modern university. The evolutionary perspective might focus upon
9
the procession of scholarly needs and arrangements, extending over several thousand years, which eventually led to the development of the modern university. The interactionist perspective would note the ways in which scholarly needs have been defined at different times and the ways in which persons and groups dealt with one another in creating the university. The functionalist perspective would concentrate upon what changes made universities seem to be necessary, what purposes they fulfilled for the society, and what effects universities have upon their students and upon societies. The conflict perspective would concentrate upon which groups and classes benefit from the university and how access to higher education operates to preserve the position of the privileged groups. For some problems, one perspective may be more useful than another. The development of the hospitality pattern, mentioned earlier, is neatly described in terms of the functionalist perspective as a custom which arose to meet a special need at a special time and place. The conflict perspective is not very helpful in understanding the rise and decline of the hospitality pattern, but the rise of labor unions (to advance workers' interests against those of management) is nicely analyzed within the conflict perspective. There are many other perspectives in sociology—resource theory, systems theory, social learning theory, exchange theory, phenomenology, ethno methodology, and others—but to inflict all of them upon introductory sociology students might convince them that they were in the wrong course! On some topics, different perspectives are so sharply opposed to each other that they cannot possibly be reconciled. On social class and social inequality, for example, the functionalist and conflict perspectives flatly contradict each other about the sources of inequality and the possibilities of attaining social equality. Conflict theorists emphatically deny much of what functionalists say about inequality, and vice versa. More often, however, the different perspectives are complementary, with one pointing out what another slights or ignores. The different perspectives overlap, and all are used by most sociologists but in different mixtures. Thus, no functionalist denies the reality of class exploitation, and no conflict theorist argues that all the interests of rich and poor are opposed (e.g., pure drinking water and clean air are good for both). These are differences in emphasis, and most sociologists would refuse to be classified under any of these labels. Many sociologists, how-ever, have their favorite perspectives, upon which they rely most heavily. But all perspectives are useful and necessary for a complete understanding of society.

Although it seems from the work of many scholars, the conflict perspective is directly based upon the work of Karl Marx (1818-1883), who saw class conflict and class exploitation as the prime moving forces in history. Largely ignored by sociologists for many years, the conflict perspective has recently been revived by C. Wright Mills, Lewis Coser, and others [Aron, 1957; Dahrendorf, 1959, 1964; Chambliss, 1973; Collins, 1975]. Where functionalists see the normal state of society as one of stable equilibrium, conflict theorists see society as in a continuous state conflict between groups and classes. Although Marx concentrated upon conflict between classes for ownership of productive wealth, modern conflict theorists take a less narrow view. They see the struggle for power and income as a continuous process but one in which many categories of people appear as opponents—classes, races, nationalities, and even the sexes. Conflict theorists see a society as held together through the power of dominant groups or classes. They claim that the "shared values" which functionalists see as the glue holding society together do not really form a true consensus; instead this is an artificial consensus in which the dominant groups or classes impose their values and rules upon the rest of the people. According to conflict theorists, functionalists fail to ask the ques-tion, "functionally useful to whom?" Conflict theorists accuse functionalists of a conservative bias, in that functionalists assume that this "harmonious equilibrium" is beneficial to everyone, whereas it benefits some and penalizes others. Conflict theorists see the harmonious equilibrium of society as an illusion held by those who fail to see how the dominant groups have silenced those whom they exploit. Conflict theorists ask such questions as, "How have the present patterns emerged from the contest between conflicting groups, each seeking its own advantage?‖How do the dominant groups and classes achieve and maintain their position of privilege?" "How do they manipulate the institutions of society (schools, churches, and mass media) to protect their privileges?" "Who benefits and who suffers from the present social arrangements?" "How can society be made more just and humane?"

In this perspective a society is seen as an organized network of cooperating groups operating in a fairly orderly manner according to a set of rules and values shared by most members. Society is seen as a stable system with a tendency toward-equilibrium, -that is, a tendency to maintain a balanced; harmoniously operating system. In the functionalist perspective, with Talcott Parsons [1937], Kingsley Davis [1937], and Robert Merton [1957] as the most prominent spokesmen, each group or institution fulfills certain functions and persists because it is functional. Thus, the school educates children, prepares workers, takes children off their parents' hands for part of the day, and provides spectator sports events for the community, among other things. Behavior patterns arise because they are ', functionally useful. On the American frontier, where there were few inns and fewer people with money for them, a hospitality pattern developed. The traveling family was welcome guests of the nearest settlers wherever night fell upon them. The travelers brought news and a break in monotony; the host provided food and shelter. As the frontier became settled, the hospitality pattern be-came unnecessary and it declined. Thus pat-terns arise to meet needs and pass when the needs change.

Social change disrupts the stable equilibrium of the society, before long a new equilibrium is regained. For example, large families were desired throughout most of history. Death rates were high, and large families helped to ensure some survivors and with never enough hands to do the work, large families were functionally useful. They provided workers, companionship, and old-age security and were good for both the individual and the society. Today, in a crowded world with a lower death rate, large families are no longer a blessing. In

other words, large families have become dysfunctional and threaten the welfare of the society. So a new equilibrium is approaching in which, instead of high death rates and high birth rates, we shall (hopefully) have low death rates and low birth rates. Thus, a value or practice which is functional at one time or place may become dysfunctional—interfering with the smooth operation of society—at another time or place. If a particular social change promotes a harmonious equilibrium, it is seen as functional; if it disrupts the equilibrium, it is dysfunction; if it has no effects, it is non-functional. In a democracy political parties are functional while bombings, assassinations, and political terrorism are dysfunctional, and changes in political vocabulary or party insignia are nonfunctional. Functionalists ask such questions as, "How does this value, practice, or institution help meet the needs of the society?" "How does it fit in with the other pra

The interactionist perspective suggests no grand theories of society, since "society," "the state," and "social institutions" are conceptual abstractions, while only people and their interaction can be studied directly. Sociologists like G. H. Mead (1863-1931) and C. H. Cooley (1846-1929) concentrate upon this interaction between individuals and groups. They note that people interact mainly through symbols, (language) which include signs, gestures, and most importantly, through written and spoken words. A word has no inherent meaning. It is simply a noise; it becomes a word when people reach agreement that this noise carries a special meaning. Thus "yes," "no," "go," "come," and thousands of other sounds became symbols as a meaning is attached to each. Al-though some meanings can be exchanged without words, as all lovers know, most meanings are exchanged through spoken or written words. People do not respond to the world directly; they respond to meanings they impute to the things and happenings around them: a traffic light, a lineup at a ticket window, a police officer's whistle and hand signal. An early sociologist, Thomas (1863-1947), coined the phrase, definition of the situation, noting that we can act sensibly only after we decide what kind of situation it is. If a man approaches with right hand extended, we define this as a friendly greeting; if he approaches with clenched fists, we define the situation differently. A person who misdefines a situation and tries to make love, or vice versa, is a stock comic. But in real life, failure to define behavior situations correctly and make appropriate responses can have unhappy consequences. As Berger and Luckma state, society is an objective reality, in that people, groups, and institutions are real, regardless of our perceptions of them. But society is also a subjective reality, in that for each person, the other persons, groups, and institutions are what-ever that person perceives them as being. Whether most people are pretty nice or pretty nasty, whether the police are protectors or oppressors, whether corporations serve common interests or selfish interests—these are perceptions which persons form their own experiences, and these perceptions be-come "the way it is" for persons holding them. This does not mean that all reality is subjective—that it exists only in the mind. There are objective facts in the universe. The sun, moon, and stars are real, and still would be "out there" even if there were no humans to see them. Human beings are real; they get born and they die; they take actions which have consequences. But a fact has no meaning of itself. Meanings are given to facts arid human actions by human-beings.` The symbolic interactionist perspective concentrates upon what meanings people find in other people's actions, how these meanings are derived, and how others respond to them. The interactionist perspective has brought a great deal of insight into personality development and human behavior. It has been less helpful in the study of large groups and social institutions.

In order to study anything, one must begin by making some assumptions about the nature of what is studied. For example, the ancient Greeks believed that the universe was run according to the whims of the gods. By contrast, all scientists assume that the universe is orderly, and operates in certain regular ways which we may be able to discover. Thus, Newton developed the laws of gravity after observing that apples always fall down, never up. A working set of assumptions is called a "perspective," an "approach". What are some of the perspectives used in sociology?
 
The Evolutionary Perspective 
 The evolutionary perspective is the earliest theoretical perspective in sociology. Based on the work of August Comte (1798-1857) and Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), it seemed to offer a satisfying explanation of how human societies originate and grow. After a few decades it fell from favor, and is now once again becoming fashionable.
Sociologists using the evolutionary perspective look for patterns of change and development appearing in different societies, to see whether any general sequences can be found. They might wonder, for example, whether Chinese Communism will develop in the same way as Russian Communism, which gained power three decades earlier, or whether industrialization will have the same effects upon the family in developing countries that it seems to have had in Western nations. While not the major perspective in sociology, the evolutionary perspective is an active one.

A science can be defined in two ways:
(1) a science is a body of organized, verified knowledge which has been secured through scientific investigation
(2) a science is a method of study by which a body of organized, verified knowledge is discovered.

These are, of course, two ways of saying much the same thing. If the first definition is accepted, then sociology is a science to the extent that it develops a body of organized, verified knowledge which is based on scientific investigation. To the extent that sociology forsakes myth, folklore, and wishful thinking and bases its conclusions on scientific evidence, it is a science. If science is defined as a method of study, then sociology is a science to the extent that it uses scientific methods of study. All natural phenomena can be studied scientifically, if one is willing to use scientific methods. Any kind of behavior—whether of atoms, animals, or adolescents—is a proper field for scientific study. During human history, few of our actions have been based on verified knowledge, for people through the ages have been guided mainly by folklore, habit, and guesswork.

Until a few centuries ago, very few people accepted the idea that we should find out about the natural world by systematic observation of the natural world itself, rather than by consulting oracles, ancestors, or intuition. This new idea created the modern world. A few decades ago we began acting on the assumption that this same approach might also give useful knowledge about human social life. Just how far we have replaced folklore with knowledge in this area can be explored.

The scientific method (some would prefer to say scientific methods) includes a great deal. The scientist must accumulate considerable background information on the problem. Then he or she formulates a hypothesis. This is a carefully considered theoretical statement which seeks to relate all the known facts to one another in a logical manner. The hypothesis is then tested by scientific research. For example, the hypothesis that cancer is a virus disease is based upon a great deal of observation; it relates known facts in a logical manner, and is now being tested through many research projects. Eventually a hypothesis is confirmed, rejected, or revised, and in this manner a science grows.
There are several steps in scientific re-search. They are easy to list but not always easy to follow:
1. Define the problem. We need a problem which is worth study and which can be studied through the methods of science.
2. Review the literature. It would be a waste of time to repeat the errors of other research scholars. A survey of whatever research has been done on this problem is in order.
3. Formulate the hypotheses. Develop one or more formal propositions which can be tested.
4. Plan the research design, outlining just what is to be studied, what data will be sought, and where and how they will be collected, processed, and analyzed.
5. Collect the data in accordance with the research design. Often it will be necessary to change the design to meet some unforeseen difficulty.
6. Analyze the data. Classify, tabulate, and compare the data, making whatever tests and computations are necessary to help find the results.
7. Draw conclusions. Was the original hypothesis confirmed or rejected? Or were the results inconclusive? What has this research added to our knowledge? What implications have it for sociological theory? What new questions and suggestions for further research have arisen from this investigation?
8. Replicate the study. The seven steps above complete a single research study, but research findings are confirmed by replication. When another scholar repeats the study, using a different sample, the original findings may or may not be confirmed. Only after several confirmations, and no disconfirmations, can a research conclusion is accepted as generally true.

Many events happen without any scientific observer on the sidelines.
If each sea monster broke water before a panel of ichthyologists, and each revolution were staged before a team of visiting sociologists, our knowledge would be far more complete. But for many phenomena the only reports we have are the casual impressions of untrained observers who happened to be there; these reports may be interesting and possibly useful, but must be interpreted most cautiously by scientists. Scientific observations are made under controlled conditions. (Experimentation) Laboratories are popular with scientists because they are handy places to control variables such as heat, light, air pressure, time intervals, or whatever is important. A variable is anything which varies from case to case. For example, people vary in height, weight, age, sex, race, religion, education, occupation, income, health, behavior characteristics, and many other things. We have a scientific experiment when we control all important variables except one, then see what happens when that one is varied. Unless all variables except one have been controlled, we cannot be sure which variable has produced the results. If we wish to study, say, the effects of phosphates on plant growth, all other factors—seed, soil, water, sunlight, temperature, humidity—must be the same for all the sample plots; then the varying amounts of phosphates on different test plots can be held responsible for different growth rates. This is the basic technique in all scientific experimentation—allows one variable to vary while holding all other variables constant.

Complicated statistical procedures for multivariate analysis
These enable the researcher to work with two or more variables at a time. But this is only a refinement of the basic procedure of holding all other variables constant in order to measure the impact of the one (or more) under study. Failure to control all variables is a most common error in scientific method and ac-counts for most false conclusions. For example, a number of studies several decades ago concluded that the employment of mothers increased child delinquency. But these studies failed to control for the variables of social class and family composition. A sample of working mothers who were mostly poor, uneducated, often widowed or separated, and living in wretched neighborhoods, was compared with a sample of nonworking mothers who were more prosperous, better educated, and living with their husbands in good neighborhoods. No wonder they found strong association between maternal employment and child delinquency which more re-cent research does not fully confirm. Failure to control some variable—social class, education, age, and occupation are common ones—has invalidated many research studies. Since laboratories are such convenient places to control the conditions of observation, scientists use them whenever possible. But much that is important cannot be dragged into a laboratory. Volcanoes and earthquakes cannot be staged in a test tube, nor can we study the courtship process very realistically by herding couples into a laboratory. Both physical and social scientists frequently must observe phenomena in their natural setting. Techniques may range from lowering a bathysphere to the ocean floor to giving a questionnaire to a group of army recruits. If we remember that the basic scientific procedure is the conducting of accurate observations, while laboratories, instruments, arid computers are merely tools of observation, this difference in technique will not confuse us.
The scientific critics will trust a reported observation only insofar as the conditions of observation have been controlled. On this basis scientists are skeptical of the claims of spiritualism and mind reading. Spiritualists can conduct a very convincing scene in their own stage setting but are loath to attempt a séance where the room, furnishings, and lighting are controlled by the scientist. The professional mind reader is very convincing in a theater setting but is unwilling to attempt a reading under scientifically controlled conditions. Until spiritualists and mind readers make demonstrations under conditions which preclude the possibility of deception, scientists should dismiss them as either entertainers or frauds. Is it not strange that most of those who claim to foresee the future are performing in shabby carnivals and nightclubs instead of raking in millions in Wall Street? Why has no professed mind reader ever won a world chess or bridge championship? Although there are occasional newspaper reports of some psychic having "solved" a crime, is it not significant that police departments and intelligence agencies do not routinely employ psychic detectives? Although many exposes of the tricks of psychics, mentalists, fortune tellers, astrologers, and spiritualists have been published, their popular following today seems greater than at any time in recent history. In these several respects, then, scientific observation differs from looking at things. We spend our lives looking at things, and this activity brings us much information, many impressions, and numerous conclusions. But these conclusions are clouded by accident of coincidence, by selective memory, and by personal bias. Therefore, before accepting any generalization as true, the critical observer wants to know what it is based upon. A conclusion is based upon a systematically collected body of scientific evidence, or it is an offhand reaction to haphazard observation.

A billion people watch the sun and moon sweep across the sky, but more sophisticated observers know that is not exactly what happens. Untrained observers do not know what to look for or how to interpret it. They do not know the pitfalls which lead to inaccurate observation, nor are they fully aware of the tricks their own limitations and biases may play on them.
Starting reports of phenomena generally come from uneducated, unsophisticated persons, and are discounted by the experts. When some remarkable observations are reported, the scientist will want to know:
(1) What is the observer's general level of education and sophistication? Is this person a member of a superstition-ridden folk group, or of a well-informed and somewhat skeptical population?
(2) What is his or her special knowledge or training in this particular field? Does this observer have the knowledge to tell whether this event has a perfectly natural explanation? Thus, the biologist among the ship's passengers is less likely to see a sea monster than are the members of the crew and the meteorologist sees fewer UFOs (Un Indentified Objects) than people with no special knowledge of atmospheric phe-nomena.
In recent years public interest in psychic and occult phenomena has exploded. A book claiming that plants have consciousness and are responsive to human feelings has been a best-seller [Tompkins and Bird, 1973], al-though scientists are generally unimpressed [First, 1973], and there are no authenticated reports that anyone has yet "hated" the crabgrass out of the lawn.
A one-time stage magician, Uri Geller, has attracted great attention as a psychic and has even impressed a team of physicists at Stanford Research Institute. But physicists and other scientists, whatever their credentials as scientists, are not trained observers of sleight-of-hand deception. Stage magicians consider scientists as easy to fool as anyone else, and generally dismiss Geller and other psychics as showmen with no psychic powers. Obviously, a "trained observer" must be trained in the particular kind of observation he or she is conducting.

Scientific observations are accurate.
The scientific observer tries to make sure things are exactly as described and avoids jumping to conclusions. Novelists may fantasize and politicians may exaggerate, but the scientist must try to be accurate.

Scientific observations are precise. Precision refers to degree or measurement. No respectable social scientist would say, "I interviewed a lot of people, and most of them feel that things are terrible," and claim this was a scientific investigation. Since scientific writing is precise, scientists avoid colorful literary extravagances. Tennyson's lines, "Every moment dies a man; every moment one is born," is literature not science. If written with scientific precision it might read, "Every 0.596 seconds, on the average in 1980, died a person; every 0.2448 seconds an infant was born." Literary writing may be intentionally vague, stimulating the reader to wonder what is meant (e.g., was Hamlet insane?), but the dramatic sweep of the novelist and the provocative imagery of the poet have no place in scientific writing. Precision, A billionth of an inch is too large an error for a nuclear physicist; for a social scientist studying crowded housing, a measure to the nearest square foot is satisfactory. Scientists seek as much precision as the situation requires. If conditions of observation do not permit such precision, the scientist must qualify judgment until more precise observations can be collected.

Scientific observations are systematic. Conclusions based on casual recollections are unreliable. Judgments which begin with, "I've talked to a lot of people and ..." should be classed as conversation not as research. Unless observations have been collected in an organized, systematic program, they are likely to be spotty and incomplete.

Scientific observations are recordable. Human memory is notoriously fallible. Suppose a professor says, "Women usually don't do as well in this course as men." Unless this professor has computed average scores for men and women students, he is saying, "I have recalled the grades of hundreds of students, mentally computed averages, and found the male average score to be higher." The utter absurdity of such a statement shows how untrustworthy are all conclusions based upon recalling unrecorded data.


Scientific observations are objective.
This means that, observation is unaffected by the observer's own belief, preferences, wishes, or values. In other words, objectivity means the ability to see and accept facts as they are, not as one might wish them to be. It is fairly easy to be objective when observing something about which we have no preferences or values. It is fairly easy to study objectively the mating practices of the fruit fly, but less easy to view the mating practices of the human being with objective detachment. On any matter where our emotions, beliefs, habits, and values are involved, we are likely to see whatever agrees with our emotional needs and values. To be objective is perhaps the most taxing of all scientific obligations. It is not enough to be willing to see facts as they are. We must know what our biases are if we are to guard against them. A bias is simply a tendency, usually unconscious to see facts in ones own way because one's habits, wishes, interests, and values. Thus, a "peace demonstration" is seen by some as a courageous effort to save the world from collective suicide, while others see it as a misguided effort to replace hard-headed realism with idealistic mush.

 We do not know from where our ideas come or what they are based on, we sometimes call it "common sense." If we call them common sense, we do not have to prove they are true, for then others will join us in the collective self-deception of assuming they have already been proved. If one presses for proof, one is told that the idea has been proved by experience. The term "common sense" puts a respectable front on all sorts of ideas for which there is no systematic body of evidence that can be cited. Common sense consists of a group's accumulation of collective guesses, hunches, and haphazard trial-and error learning. Many common-sense propositions are sound, earthy, useful bits of knowledge. "A soft answer turned away wrath," and "birds of a feather flock together," are practical observations on social life. But many common-sense conclusions are based on ignorance, prejudice, and mistaken interpretation. When medieval Europeans noticed that feverish patients were free of lice while most healthy people were lousy, they made the common-sense conclusion that lice would cure fever and therefore sprinkled lice over feverish patients. Common sense thus preserves both folk wisdom and folk non-sense, and to sort out one from the other is a task for science. Only within the past two or three hundred years has the scientific method become a common way of seeking answers about the natural world. Science has become a source of knowledge about our social world even more recently; yet in the brief period since we began to use the scientific method; we have learned more about our world than had been learned in the preceding ten thousand years. The spectacular explosion of knowledge in the modern world parallels our use of the scientific method. How does this scientific method operate?

The scope and function of Sociology, just like other disciplines in social sciences, can be seen both in
the field of knowledge as well as in the field of profession. The scope and function of the young but rapidly growing discipline of Sociology has been presented in the following diagram:
 
Scope of Social Sciences can be subdivided into following fields

• Field of Knowledge 
• Field of Profession

or

• Teaching > University/College
• Research > Scholars
• Administration > CSS/ PCS/ Private Business

Scope in the Field of Knowledge: The primary concern of a sociologist is to build up the most
reliable body of knowledge about the human relationship. The persons who utilize this knowledge cannot becalled sociologists in the true sense of the term. Sociological knowledge is for the sake of knowledge and for direct solution of practical problems; it does not teach us morality or wisdom. Knowledge in itself is an end and not a means to certain ends. A sociologist gathers information about the people living in rural and urban areas, crime and delinquency, population problems race and ethnic relations, health and sanitary conditions,structure and functioning of social, institutions etc. Thus a sociologist, on the basis of analysis, description,understanding and explanation of the "subject matter," predicts the human behavior under certain conditions.

The next question which comes to our mind is " 
Knowledge for what"?
Is sociological knowledge simply the light-bearer or the fruit-bearer? As described earlier, sociological knowledge isan end in itself. But the border-line between means and .ends is not very clear. We cannot differentiate between the means and ends in sociological knowledge very clearly on standardized patterns. Thus the subject matter of sociological knowledge is difficult to separate from the practical solutions of problems. The people interested in sociological knowledge can get benefit from it in the desired manner. The students are also provided with the information on the structure and functioning of human groups within and outside their own society. Such information on various cultures, societies and personalities helps them to widen the horizon of their knowledge. This type of understanding helps in increasing tolerance and develops a democratic attitude among the students of Sociology. They would be in a better position to understand and solve the problems of their day to day social lives. The sociological knowledge broadens one's general outlook towards social issues, i.e., resulting in a better adjustment of an individual in one's socio-cultural, socio-political and socio-religious environment.

Allama-lbn-e-Khaldoon (1332-1406 A.C) a Muslim scholar discussed this discipline in his famous "Mugadama" to Tarikh-i-Ibn-e-Khaldoon and named it as Ilmul-lmran. "Knowledge of life‖. About five centuries after his death August Comte (1798-1857) named this discipline as "Physics of Society" and then called it as "Sociology".
Now, a lot of work has been done in this discipline. A number of sociologists have defined it in different ways.
i. Social The Systematic study of relationships among people (John E. Conklin).
ii. The scientific study of human social life (Horton & Hunt).
iii. Sociology is the systematic study of development, structure, interaction and collective behavior of organized group of human beings (B.J Cohon & Terri H. Orbuch).
(The systematic study of group life of human beings and the resulting behavior)

Subject Matter of Social Sciences
Alex Inkeles, suggests the following outlines of the subject matter of Sociology:
A. Sociological Analysis.
(i) Human culture and society.
(ii) Sociology perspective.
(iii) Scientific method in social sciences.
B. Primary units of social life.
(i) Social acts and social relationships.
(ii) Personality.
(iii) Groups (including ethnic and class)
(iv) Communities: urban and rural.
(v) Associations and organization;
(vi) Populations.

C. Basic Social Institutions:
(i) The family and kinship.
(ii) Economic.
(iii) Government and Politics.
(iv) Religious.
(v) Educational, health and scientific.
(vi) Recreational and welfare.
(vii) Aesthetic and expressive.
D. Fundamental Social Processes.
(i) Differentiation and stratification.
(ii) Cooperation, accommodation, assimilation.
(iii) Social conflict (including revolution and war).
(iv) Communication (including opinion formation, expression and change).
(v) Socialization and identification.
(vi) Social evaluation (the study of values).
(vii) Social control.
(viii) Social deviance (crime, suicide etc).
(ix) Social integration.
(x) Social change.

 Following are the reasons why we study Sociology:

1. The sociology knowledge gives us a fresh look of society and social environment.
2. The knowledge of sociology enables us to understand origin of our view points and attitudes and, later on, the forces which influence our behavior.
3. The knowledge of sociology makes the attitudes and behaviors flexible for facing novel situations.
4. After analyzing society its institutions and groups and their effects on group life This enables us to have an up-to-date, look at the ever changing face of social realities Sociologists' insight is important and have a great value for the educators, medical workers, Govt. officials, business-men, lawyers, and also for social planners. The sociologists' information on the past trends is very helpful for further planning.