Science, Objectivity, and Values (AQA A-Level Sociology): Revision Notes
Science, Objectivity, and Values
Positivism versus interpretivism
Positivism is the view that sociology can and should model itself on the natural sciences, using quantitative methods to study society objectively. Positivists such as Durkheim argue that sociologists can discover laws about human behaviour using the hypothetico-deductive model. This approach involves observing something, forming a hypothesis to explain it, gathering data through systematic observation and measurement, then establishing laws to show how evidence supports the hypothesis. The process of verification (checking something is true) should be used to prove or refute hypotheses.
The fundamental divide between positivism and interpretivism represents one of the most important debates in sociology. Positivists seek to apply natural science methods to social phenomena, while interpretivists argue that human behaviour requires different approaches that focus on understanding meaning rather than establishing universal laws.
Positivists believe that value freedom is possible - a researcher's own beliefs should not influence how they conduct research or interpret their results. Durkheim used the comparative method, comparing suicide statistics to discover laws of cause and effect on suicide. He believed patterns in suicide rates were caused by differences in social integration and moral regulation, discovering this by examining correlations between suicide rates and variables such as religion across different European countries. Suicide rates were social facts - caused by society's structure and external to the individual.
Worked Example: Durkheim's Study of Suicide
Step 1: Observation - Durkheim noticed varying suicide rates across European countries
Step 2: Hypothesis Formation - He hypothesised that social factors (integration and regulation) influence suicide rates
Step 3: Data Collection - He gathered official suicide statistics and compared them with social variables like religion, marital status, and economic conditions
Step 4: Analysis - He found correlations showing that Protestant countries had higher suicide rates than Catholic countries, leading to his theory about social integration
Interpretivists and social action theorists reject the claim that sociology can be an objective science. They argue that sociological inquiry should uncover meanings and gain verstehen (understanding) through qualitative methods, not establish cause and effect. Sociologists need to be subjective and will inevitably be influenced by their values, rather than being value-free and objective.
Interpretivists fundamentally challenge positivist assumptions by arguing that human behaviour cannot be studied in the same way as natural phenomena because humans have consciousness, intentions, and meanings that must be understood rather than simply measured.
Douglas (1967) rejects Durkheim's use of official statistics, arguing that suicide statistics are based on subjective opinions of coroners rather than being scientific and objective. Verdicts may be influenced by factors such as relatives not wanting a suicide verdict in Catholic countries. Atkinson (1978) argues that suicide is an individual act, not a social fact - official statistics are socially constructed and reveal more about coroners' interpretations than actual suicide levels.
Views on the nature of science
Popper's falsification approach
Popper rejects the hypothetico-deductive approach of positivism, arguing that scientific knowledge should be based on falsification (proving theories wrong) rather than verification. While sociology could be scientific as it can produce testable hypotheses, most sociology is unscientific because it cannot be proved wrong.
Popper's approach suggests that good scientific theories must be capable of being disproven. If a theory cannot be falsified, it cannot be considered truly scientific. This creates challenges for many sociological theories that are difficult to test definitively.
Kuhn's paradigm theory
Kuhn (1962) argues that scientific knowledge works within a shared framework agreed by members, which he calls a paradigm. He rejects positivist and Popperian views, arguing there is no objective independent scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge operates within paradigms (such as "the Earth is flat") which only change when enough evidence contradicts the paradigm. Since sociology lacks a shared dominant paradigm due to competing theories, it cannot be considered a true science.
Kuhn's paradigm theory suggests that sociology's lack of a unified theoretical framework prevents it from being a 'mature' science. The existence of multiple competing theories (functionalism, Marxism, interpretivism) demonstrates sociology's pre-paradigmatic status.
Feyerabend's critique
Feyerabend (1975) criticises both positivists and Popper, arguing that individual scientists will manipulate rules and distort data to prove their theories rather than being objective and rational. Examples exist of scientific misconduct, such as Burt's research into intelligence types that influenced the tripartite education system.
Realist perspective
Realists argue that like natural scientists (such as meteorologists), sociologists study society in open systems where variables cannot be controlled and measured. Sociology can attempt to be scientific by studying open systems neutrally, examining unobservable underlying structures. Social class cannot be directly observed, but its effects (such as on educational attainment) can be measured.
The realist perspective offers a middle ground by acknowledging that both natural and social sciences often work with complex, uncontrollable variables. This suggests sociology can be scientific without needing to replicate laboratory conditions.
Postmodernist view
Postmodernists such as Lyotard (1992) reject absolute truths and objectivity in knowledge. They argue all knowledge is relative and that science represents just one version of 'truth'. Postmodernists regard modern positivist theories like functionalism and Marxism as metanarratives (big stories) that no longer explain the diverse and fragmented nature of postmodern society. However, postmodernism faces criticism for being contradictory - if all knowledge is relative, why should we accept postmodernism's version of truth?
Objectivity and values in sociology
Classical positivist view
Classical positivists such as Durkheim argued that sociology should be value-free. Sociologists should discover laws about human behaviour to understand how society works and improve it through social policies. The sociologist's job is to establish truth in a neutral, detached way. Value freedom is possible because researchers' beliefs should not influence their research conduct or result interpretation.
Interpretivist perspective
Interpretivists and social action theorists reject claims that sociology can be objective science. They argue sociological inquiry should uncover meanings through qualitative methods rather than establish cause and effect. Sociologists need to be subjective and will inevitably be influenced by their values rather than being value-free and objective.
Weber's position
Weber argues that sociologists cannot be value-free when choosing research topics and interpreting findings. However, he believes researchers should be objective and unbiased when carrying out their research. This represents a middle position between complete objectivity and total subjectivity.
Weber's compromise position acknowledges the reality that values influence what sociologists choose to study, but maintains that the research process itself can and should be conducted objectively. This distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification remains influential in sociological methodology.
Modern positivist argument
Modern positivists argue that sociologists can be value-free and should remain morally neutral when conducting research. However, many sociologists such as Weber and Gouldner reject this view, arguing that sociologists have a moral responsibility when conducting research. As citizens, researchers cannot divorce themselves from potential harm that could result from their findings.
Committed sociology approaches
Gouldner argued that sociologists should be 'committed' rather than 'morally neutral' and value-free. Marxists and feminists argue that value freedom is undesirable - sociologists should be value-laden and make value judgements to improve society through sociological research.
The debate between value-free and committed sociology reflects broader questions about the role of social scientists in society. Should researchers remain neutral observers, or do they have a responsibility to use their knowledge to promote social change?
Labelling theorist Becker argues that sociologists should take the side of the 'underdog' - working-class students and criminals labelled by powerful groups. He believes interpretivist methods should gain verstehen on 'outsiders' views. Gouldner criticised this as insufficient - as a Marxist, he argued sociologists should support people fighting capitalism.
Postmodernist and feminist perspectives
For postmodernists, all knowledge is relative with no single theory holding absolute objective truth. All modern theories (Marxism, functionalism) are metanarratives based on values and assumptions, though postmodernism itself could be described as a metanarrative.
Some feminists argue sociology should not attempt to be scientific, as no single scientific feminist theory could explain all women's experiences. Others argue qualitative methods are needed to understand women's experiences.
Additional factors affecting objectivity
Other factors may prevent sociologists from being value-free, including funding sources (governments may not publish disagreeable findings) and career considerations (researchers may choose popular topics to advance their careers).
Practical constraints on sociological research often make complete objectivity impossible. External pressures from funding bodies, publishers, and career advancement can all influence what research gets conducted and how findings are presented.
Key Takeaways
Essential Points to Remember:
-
Positivists believe sociology can be scientific and value-free, using quantitative methods to discover social laws, while interpretivists argue sociology should focus on meanings and verstehen through qualitative methods
-
Four main views on science: Positivist (verification), Popper (falsification), Kuhn (paradigms), and Realist (open systems studying underlying structures)
-
Weber's middle position: sociologists cannot be value-free in topic choice but should remain objective during research conduct
-
Value freedom vs committed sociology: debate between those supporting neutral research versus those arguing sociologists should take sides to improve society
-
Postmodernists reject absolute truths, viewing all theories as relative metanarratives that cannot fully explain postmodern society's complexity