Institute of Sociology NASU

DISCURSIVE ASPECT OF THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF EMPIRICAL SOCIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

stmm. 2022 (2): 74-92

DOI https://doi.org/10.15407/sociology2022.02.074

OLEKSANDR STEGNII, Doctor of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow at the Department of Methodology and Methods of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (12, Shovkovychna St., Kyiv, 01021)

o.stegniy@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7829-127X

The published results of public opinion polls cease to be the subject of narrow professional discussion and become part of public discourse, which reflects the attitude of the non-sociological community to the trustworthiness of empirical sociological knowledge in the form of mass polls. The trustworthiness of empirical sociological knowledge in public space for the general public is determined by the level of confidence in the published data of mass surveys and is achieved by the methodological culture of the surveyor, which is embodied in compliance with all requirements for empirical research, including tools; the level of factual knowledge of respondents; effective participation of pollster-sociologists in the analytical interpretation of the obtained results, reasoned explanation of the answers of survey participants to socially significant questions. Publicity of the customer is also important for polls on electoral and sensitive socio-political issues. Accordingly, markers of the trustworthiness of empirical sociological knowledge in public discourse can be marked out based on two basic criteria: the transparency of the survey and the heuristic potential of the toolkit. Transparency implies maximum publicity of the algorithm for collecting empirical sociological information, including the calculation of the error of the results obtained, the publication of not only the performer but also the customer of the survey. Public information about the performer allows the public to judge his professional reputation, authority, political neutrality, (in) dependence on certain political or business entities. The heuristic potential of the toolkit provides an opportunity to thoroughly explain the results to the public, to clarify the level of factual knowledge of respondents on the subject of the survey. Under such conditions, the surveyor can adequately explain to the non-sociological community possible contradictory results, especially in the case of sensitive socio-political issues.

Keywords: public sociology, public discourse, public opinion, trust to sociological surveys, factual knowledge of respondents, social media, empirical sociological knowledge, sensitive socio-political issues, trustworthiness markers of empirical data

References

1. Voitovych, N.O, Kravets, R.K (2014). Modern information war: Russia against Ukraine. [In Ukranian]. Obrii drukarstva. 1 (3). 69–78. [=Войтович, Кравець 2014]
2. Hyrych, I. (2020). Ukrainian intellectuals and political separation (mid-nineteenth - early twentieth century). [In Ukranian]. Kyiv: Ukrayinski propelei. [=Гирич 2020]
3. Hyrych, I. (2021). Ukrainian history: through identity to the state. [In Ukranian]. Kyiv: Ukrayinski propelei. [=Гирич 2021]
4. Kolodiy, I., Saratova, Yu. (2018). The situation of the game in sociology: the main fields and accumulated errors. [In Russian]. Spilne. 2 lipnya. Retrieved from: https://commons.com.ua/uk/situaciya-igry-v-sociologiyu-osnovnye-polya-i-nakoplennye-oshibki/ [=Колодий, Саратова 2018]
5. Nevelskaia-Gordeeva, O.P (2019). Fake news in social and legal contexts. [In Ukranian]. ΛΌГOΣ: Сollection de papiers scientifiques, 3 mars, 86–91. [=Невельська-Гордєєва 2019]
6. Ossovsky, V.L. (2005). Sociology of public opinion. [In Ukranian]. Kyiv: PTS Foliant. [=Оссовський 2005]
7. Rapoport, S.S. (2003). Sociocultural competence of an intellectual and common sense. [In Russian]. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, 1, 5–23. [=Рапопорт 2003]
8. Ukrainian society: what do we know, what do we not know and what do we avoid? Proceedings of the International Sociological Readings in Memory of N.V. Panina (2017). [In Ukranian]. Kyiv: Institute of Sociology, NAS of Ukraine. [=Укра\нське суспільство 2017]
9. Shapoval, M., Shuvar, N. (2020). Opinion poll customer: silence cannot be opened. [In Ukranian]. Yurydychna hazeta online, 10 sichnya. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/3t9DHdh [=Шаповал, Шувар 2020]
10. Allport, F.H. (1937). Toward a Science of Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1, 7–23. Retrieved from: https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Allport/Allport_1937.html
11. Bruns, A. (2003). Gatewatching, not gatekeeping: Collaborative online news. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 107 (1), 31–44.
12. Burawoy, M. (2005). For Public Sociology. 2004 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 70 (1), 4–28.
13. Kalberg, S. (1980). Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. American Journal of Sociology, 85 (5), 1145–1179.
14. Ruiz, J.R. (2009). Sociological discourse analysis: Methods and logic. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10 (2), 1–32.
15. Tollefsen, Ch.O. (2009). What is Public Discourse? Public Discourse. The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, October 9. Retrieved from: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/10/945/

Received 28.04.2022