debates Flashcards
Is sociology a science?
Durkheim - positivist functionalist sociologists
Positivist - uses empirical scientific evidence
realism- social facts are just as real as physical facts
interpretivist - opposes the positivist of natural science
opinions - collective opinion of a specific topic
subjective views - opinions based on personal impressions that are influenced by bias and prejudice
falsification- researchers deliberately look for evidence that could disprove their hypothesis
Popper- believed social science could be scientific
Paradigms - interactions of humans within any society
Kuhn - science guided by one paradigm
Features of a science
Measurable/empirical
Testable
Theoretical
Cumulative
Objective
Positivists approach:
Durkheim’s Suicide (1897) illustrates the positivist view of science. It is the most influential on sociology. Durkheim’s views are based on the following principles:
There are objective facts about the social world and they are expressed in statistics.
These facts are not influenced by the personal beliefs of the researcher.
Having collected stats, you should look for correlations which can reveal causal relationships
Durkheim believed human behaviour can be explained by external stimuli
By following this approach it is possible to uncover the laws of human behaviour
To be scientific, you should only study what you observe. It would be unscientific to study people’s emotions.
Durkheim’s approach is inductive – it involves starting with the evidence and then deriving theory.
Interpretivist approach:
Their main view is that sociology cannot and should not be a science
Interpretivists believe that the study of human society must go beyond empirical and objective science, and instead include subjective views, opinions, emotions and values - things that can’t be observed or counted
There are large differences between society and the natural world - the world we live in today is socially constructed and therefore cannot be researched and tested using scientific methods
When trying to prove that sociology is a science, positivists miss the truth rather than uncovering it - they try to make everything reliable and measurable
Realists
Sociology could not be a science depending on definition of science.
realist recognise there are some similarities between sociology and the natural science depending on the amount of control the researcher has over their variables.
2 types of system within science:
Closed system = researches are able to control and measure all the relevant variables and therefore can make predictions, similar to chemistry and physics.
Open system= the researcher is not able to control and measure all the variables so cannot make precise predictions due to the complex nature of the subject area, for example meteorology.
Keat and Urry= argue that sociology is an open system as there are often complex systems and multiple variables which the researcher cannot control
Paradigms
Kuhn
sociology is not a science but it could be
paradigm - norms which tell a scientist how to think and behave, although in science there are rival thoughts, there is still a single paradigm that all scientists accept uncritically.
currently sociology doesn’t have a single paradigm - no fundamental agreement on what or how to study society (pre-paradigmatic)
Falsification
Popper:
“SOCIOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE, BUT COULD BE”
Popper believe that instead of verification, what makes science unique is the idea of falsification.
It’s the idea that a statement can be falsified by evidence.
Popper states that sociology at present is not a science because its theories and statements are not able to be put to the test with the possibility of being falsified.
Marxists say that there will be a revolution to overthrow capitalism but this revolution but this revolution has not yet occured due to false class consciousness.
Should sociology inform social policies?
Social policy refers to the actions governments take in order to influence society, or to the actions opposition parties and ‘social movements’ propose to do if they were to gain power.
Political proposal
Designed to reform / change / improve society
May be law if that party is in power
Produced by ruling party, opposition, think tanks, pressure groups, lobbyists, charities etc.
Giddens
9 ways sociology contributes to social policy:
1.Providing awareness of cultural difference - informed rather than a hunch/stereotype
2.Providing self awareness and understanding - reflexivity/self reflection/subgroups (disability/race)
3.Changing assumptions - not going with common sense
4.Providing a theoretical framework - New Right / Third Way etc. - principles which underpin
5.Providing practical professional knowledge - experts in their field
6.Identifying social problems - can do ‘blue sky thinking’
7.Providing the evidence - research; it’s what we sociologists do, right?
8.Identifying unintended consequences - evaluate existing policies; any side effects?
9.Assessing the results - was the policy effective?
Worsely
Social and sociological problems differ.
Social problems- ‘ some piece of social action that causes public friction and/or private misery and calls for collective action to solve it’
E.g. gangs, crime, poverty, inequality
Sociological problems-’ any patterns of relationships that calls for an explanation’
a piece of behaviour that we wish to make sense of → not necessarily a problem
E.g. manners/ cultures
Factors that affect whether sociology should impact social policy
Electoral popularity- governments need votes
Ideology and policy preference of government - if a researchers value stance aligns with the governments then their research is more likely to be favoured
Interest groups-there are the pressure groups that seek to influence government policies with their own interests
Globalisation- social policies aren’t just made by nation state in isolation- they have external influence
Critical sociology- sociologists who are more critical of the state and powerful groups are sometimes regarded as too extreme
Cost- there may not be sufficient funds
Funding sources- sometimes sociologist tone their research to match the views of their funders wishes
Do values have a place in research?
Values are the beliefs accepted by a certain society. These are the beliefs that are important to the individuals of a society. It is debated within sociology whether values should interfere with sociological research for a multitude of reasons. The belief whether values can impact research differs between different perspectives.
The criticisms of sociological research results tend to circulate around the quality of its validity, reliability and representativeness. This proves where the implications are on the subject of objectivity and value freedom. For a natural scientist, it is easier for this to be achieved as their subject matter does not have consciousness.
Value Laden
Many sociologists believe that keeping sociological research completely value free is impossible and that values find a way to influence different stages of the research process.
How Can Values Influence Social Research?
Sociologists choose to research something they are interested in - EG Plummer (2000) published widely on sexual issues and ‘queer theory’ because of his own sexual preference.
Sociologists choose which method they want to use - they may not feel comfortable taking part in covert observation and so decides to complete overt observation instead.
Funding - funding sources have a reason for asking sociologists to research certain areas
Funding - those financing sociological research can block publication if the results do not align with their desires.
Career - all sociologists have career goals and aspirations and so may take on projects that align with these personal goals and help them to achieve their own aspirations
Webber:
it is impossible to keep values out of social research.
‘Personal values inevitably influence research choice.’
values should be kept out of the data collection stage of social research in order to prevent any biases from influencing findings and data.
Value free
Karl Marx -> value free sociology IS possible and desirable
Marx believed he had discovered the truth about society = seeing it as a classless communist society (everyone would be equal and free to achieve their potential)
He saw the role of sociology as being to reveal the truth - especially proletariat
The proletariat would ultimately be those to overthrow capitalism to achieve the goal of communism
He saw himself as a scientist producing communism as a solution to divided society
Positivism -> Value free sociology IS possible and desirable
Positivists envisage an objective approach to research, as they model themselves on the methods of natural sciences. This was done in an attempt to change sociology for the better. They claim that it is not a matter of personal judgement, but to find the true principles for a good, ordered and integrated society.
Durkheim argue the aim of sociology is to discover the truth about how society works `
Durkheim’s (1897) study of suicide - based on his observation that suicide appeared to be less frequent where the individual was closely integrated into a society
committed sociology
In constrast to Positivism, Myrdal argues that sociologists should not only spell out their values but also openly take sides by encouraging the values and interests of particular groups or individuals. Committed sociologists argue that it is impossible to keep values out of research and in Gouldner’s view value free sociology is:
impossible because either the sociologist’s own values or those of their employers are bound to be reflected in their work
undesirable since without values to guide research sociologists are just selling their services to the highest bidder
Becker:
Becker states that all sociology is influenced by values and this drives sociologists to take sides, even positivists. The decision in sociology is based around which side you are on
Traditionally, functionalists and positivists have been on the side of powerful, the police and the government
Becker argues that sociology has a responsibility to support the underdog- the criminal, the mental health patient
Gouldner
he states that it is neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of research
Without values to guide their research, sociologists merely sold themselves as a service to the highest bidder
Gouldner criticises Becker for taking a sentimental approach to the underdogs, accusing him of only being interested in those in “on their backs” He takes a Marxist perspective arguing that sociology should instead take the side of those who are “fighting back” Sociology should do more than describe the life of the disadvantaged; it should be committed to ending their oppression
