Theory and Methods Flashcards
Explain what is meant by sociological theory
A theory tries to explain something. Sociological theories are concerned with making generalisations about social life, they attempt to explain the patterns we see in the world around us. A theory should be capable of being tested, this will allow other sociologist to discover its weaknesses
assumptions underlying modern sociological theory can be traced back from where?
Many of the assumptions underlying modern sociological theory can be traced back to the 18th enlightenment project - an extremely influential philosophical project which had its origins in europe and later spread to america. Also known as the age of reason, it illuminated human intellect and culture after the dark middle ages, emphasising science and reason over faith and superstition.
What are the key features of the age of reason?
The power of human reason: especially in science, would enable an understanding of the world by providing knowledge and correct theories about it works.
Human progress: knowledge gained through reason and science would enable a better world to be created - natural science would cure disease, while social science would solve problems such as poverty and crime
These two combined features were central to the Enlightenment - the goal of changing the world for the better by the application of human reason. Sociological first emerged in the (19th in the rapidly developing modern industrial societies of Europe. In keeping with the enlightenment project, sociologists sought to develop theories that could be used to improve society - these theories are called modernist theories. However, sociologists have never agreed about what kind of society is desirable or how to create it. As a result, rather than one theory of modern society, there are various explanations.
Science was central to the enlightenment project as it was successful in explaining the controlling nature. The success of science made a powerful impression on the (19th modernist sociologists such as Comte, Durkheim and Marx). They sought to copy its success by producing a science of society. For these sociologists, this would be possible by borrowing the methods of the natural science, Since then other sociologists have argued that is is not possible or desirable for sociology to modern itself on the natural science and this has led to the fundamental sociological debate: can and should sociology be a science?
Explain methodology
METHODOLOGY:
Academic subjects have their own methodology - ways of producing and analysing data so that theories can be tested, accepted or rejected
Methodology refers to both the research methods through which information is collected and the more general philosophies upon which the collection of and analysis of data is based
Explain scientific methodology
Scientific Methodology:
The major methodological disagreement in sociology relates to whether sociology should adopt the same or similar methods to those employed in the natural science.
In order to fully appreciate the importance of sociological perspectives and the emphasise placed on scientific methodology it is vital to realise that sociology as an academic subject has its origins within a distinct historical intellectual and social context
The context which the discipline has emerged has had a major impact on the subsequent development of the subject.
Sociology has emerged in the second half of the (19th century against a background of changes brought about by the process of enlightenment and industrialisation
The early sociologists were living in a period of when the natural sciences were making real strides in knowledge. Sciences appeared to be capable of producing exact empirical objective knowledge that could be used to solve problems and further understanding
It was not surprising therefore, that many early sociologists turned to science for a methodology to base their subject. It was hoped that the application of natural scientific methods to the study of society might produce similar advances in the understanding of society
Explain what early sociologists were heavily influenced by
Therefore, the early sociologists were greatly influenced by:
- changes in the patterns of life that they saw going on around them
- major advances within science and technology’
- new systems of knowledge and understanding about society and individuals
From the beginning, great emphasis was placed on the need to analyse social life scientifically. Therefore, early sociologists attempted to emulate natural scientific methodology.
However, this has given rise to one of the key methodological and theoretical debates in the subject because many sociologists do not believe it is appropriate or desirable to model the subject on the sciences
Explain positivism in summary
POSTIVISM / TOP-DOWN SOCIOLOGY / STRUCTURAL THEORIES
independent variable - external stimuli - social factors - cause
dependent variable - behaviour of the person - effect
macro level of analysis - studies structure of society
Natural world and social world is subject to the same laws of cause and effect
sociology should be studied scientifically as behaviour is patterned governed by external stimuli that can be observed, measured and quantified - same logic can be applied to the social world
They believe the aim of society should show the power of society and illustrate this through the use of quantitative methods. Society should be the focus of research not people as people are puppets of society
state types of social facts
social facts can be measured and impact on behaviour such as:
age, religion, government, politics, gender, policies, ethnicity, education, laws etc
External stimuli impacting behaviour
Who are the founding fathers of sociology? and why were they positivists?
The ‘founding fathers’ of sociology in the 19th century were very impressed by the
success of science in explaining the natural world and providing the knowledge with which humans could extend their control over nature. Many, including Comte (1798-1857) who coined the term ‘sociology’ described themselves as ‘positivists’. Positivists believe that it is possible and desirable to apply the logic, methods and procedures of the natural sciences to the study of society. Doing this will bring objective knowledge, of the same type found in the natural sciences which can then be used to improve society.
what is a key feature of the positivist approach?
A key feature of the positivist approach is that reality exists outside and independently of the human mind:
- Nature is made of objective, observable and physical facts, such as rocks, plants,
molecules and atoms and - Similarly, society is an objective factual reality made up of social facts that exist ‘out there’, independently of individuals exerting influence on human behaviour.
Explain how positivists want to observe in relation to patterns
For positivists, reality is not random or chaotic but patterned. We can observe these empirical patterns or regularities - for example, that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Therefore, it is the job of science (and positivism) to observe, identify, measure and record these patterns systematically (preferably through experiments) and then explain them. Positivists believe that the social world is subject to the same laws of cause and effect and therefore it is the job of the sociologist to discover the laws that determine how society works (this is know as inductive reasoning/verification).
For positivists, the patterns that we observe, whether in nature or society can all be explained in the same way - by finding the facts that cause them. For example, physics explains an apple falling to the ground (one fact) in terms of gravity (another fact). They seek to discover the causes of the patterns and produce general statements/theories/laws about how society works. These laws can in turn be generalised and used to predict future events and guide social policies.
what explanation do positivists favour?
Positivists favour macro or structural explanations of social phenomena because they see
society and its structures as social facts that exist outside of us and shape our behaviour into patterns (such as functionalism and Marxism). Like natural scientists, positivists use quantitative data to uncover and measure patterns of behaviour. This allows them to
produce mathematically precise statements about the relationship/correlation between the facts they are investigating. Positivists believe that as far as possible sociology should take the experimental method used in the natural sciences as the model for research as it allows a hypothesis to be rigorously tested in a controlled way.
Why do positivists believe researchers should be detached and objective
They believe that researchers should be detached and objective, they should not let their own subjective feelings, values and prejudices influence how they conduct their research or analyse their findings. Positivists employ methods that allow for maximum objectivity and detachment such as questionnaires, structured interviews, structured non-participant observation, official statistics (and questionnaires). These methods produce reliable data that can be checked by other researchers repeating the research.
Do all sociologists agree with positivists?
However. not all sociologists agree that it is possible, let alone desirable for sociology to model itself on and try to emulate the natural sciences - interpretivists challenge this view and approach to sociology.
Explain positivist inductive methodology
Positivism and Induction
• Positivists see sociology as a science based on objective observation, statistics, the search for correlations, causal relationships and laws. They use what is called an INDUCTIVE approach where evidence is collected and theories are induced from it.
An inductive methodology starts by collecting the data (objective observation of social facts), which is then analysed (measured and quantified) and out of this analysis theories are developed (correlations and causes).
• Once the theory has been developed it can be tested again to see if it is confirmed or not. If it is repeatedly confirmed then positivists such as Comte assume they have discovered a law of human behaviour
Despite the undoubted influence of positivist methodology within sociology the inductive approach on which it is based has not been accepted by all
by all scientists. Many advocate and use an alternative DEDUCTIVE approach.
Explain deductive methodology
DEDUCTIVE METHODOLOGY:
This alternative scientific methodology used in both natural and social science is supported by Popper. In ‘The logic and scientific discovery’ (1959). Popper proposes the deductive approach which starts with a theory and tests it against evidence, rather than developing a theory as the result of examining evidence.
He argues that scientists should start with a hypothesis and objectively and rigorously test it.
A scientific theory is one that can be tested. From the theory one can deduce hypothesis and can make precise predictions (a deductive approach). If repeatedly tested and found to be correct, a theory may be provisionally accepted by there is always the possibility that it will be proved falsified in the future.
Popper claims that you cannot ever be sure that you have found the truth. What is considered true may be disproved tomorrow theories are always capable of FALSIFICATION and do not therefore have the permanence attributed to them by positivists
Summarise poppers deductive approach
In summary, Popper uses a deductive approach: this means deducting hypothesis from a theory then checking that they are correct. This is unlike positivism which is inductive - it induces theories from the data collected.
Both Popper and positivists see a scientific methodology as desirable (but he regards sociology as unscientific because the predictions are not precise enough). Positivists see science as a producing objective truth, while popper sees science as getting as close as possible to the truth - since it is always possible that a theory will be falsified in the future
Explain Durkheim’s study of suicide
Durkheim (1897) choose to study suicide to establish sociology’s status as a science. He believed that if he could prove that even such a highly individual act had social causes, this would establish sociology’s status as a scientific discipline. From his analysis of suicide rate he found that this supposedly highly individual act was patterned. He believed this reflected the social causes that were external to the individual which influenced behaviour and could be observed, measured and quantified.
Using Quantitative data, he observed that for example suicide rates for Protestants were higher than for Catholics. He concluded that these patterns could not be the product of the motives of individuals but were social facts forces acting upon members of society to determine their behaviour. According to Durkheim, the social facts responsible for determining the suicide rate were the levels of integration and regulation. Therefore, for example Catholics were less likely that Protestants to commit suicide because Catholicism was more successful in integrating individuals
Therefore, Durkheim claimed to have discovered a ‘real law’: that different levels of integration and regulation produce different rates of suicide. He claimed to have demonstrated that sociology has its own unique subject matter - social facts and these could be explained scientifically.
Evaluate Durkheim’s study of suicide
- He fails to account for internal factors that may lead to suicide in his research and generalises all of the statistics to be linked to religion
- statistics may not be accurate as in the church suicide is a sin especially for Catholics and may write of deaths as a difference causes
- statistics don’t tell why they committed suicide / superficial
Summarise interpretivism
INTERPRETIVISM/BOTTOM-UP SOCIOLOGY/SOCIAL ACTION THEORY
Reject the idea that human behaviour is governed by external stimuli as claimed by positivists. Interpretivists argue behaviour is much more complex and meaningful.
- people / social actors do not react to external stimuli - they act upon them in terms of meanings / interpretations and ideas
- people have consciousness, think, feel, decide, make sense
Interpretivists - create / construct - social world through our own interpretations and meanings
Bottom-up approach - explore - subjectively create social world - Qualitative methods which allows sociologists to get close to the truth and a more indepth micro analysis
People/actors/individuals have agency and free will
behaviour is not dictated by external stimuli but internal stimuli
Internal stimuli cannot be measured or quantified and includes thoughts, ideas, views and opinions
Explain interpretivist view on sociology
Interpretivists do not believe that sociology should model itself on the natural sciences. Interpretivism includes the more micro/action theories such as interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology. They criticise positivism’s ‘scientific’ approach as inadequate and completely unsuited to the study of human beings. They argue that the study of social phenomena must begin with the subjective states of mind of the social actors - the meanings and motives that direct their actions, not external causes. Rather than impose an external judgement on an action/behaviour as positivists do, they argue that sociology is about internal meanings
Explain interpretivists argument on the fundamental difference of the subject matter of natural sciences and sociology
Interpretivists claim that there is a fundamental difference between the subject matter of the natural sciences and sociology and therefore a different methodology is required;
(a) Natural sciences study matter which has no consciousness and as such its behaviour can be explained as a straightforward reaction to an external stimulus.
(b) Sociology studies: people who do have consciousness. People make sense of and construct their world by attaching meanings to it. Their actions can only be understood in terms of these meanings, which are internal to people’s consciousness not external stimuli
What do interpretivists believe on how individuals should be studied?
For interpretivists, then individuals are not puppets on a string, manipulated by external ‘social facts’, as positivists believe but autonomous beings who construct their social world through the meanings they give to it. The job of the sociologist is to uncover these meanings. Therefore, interpretivists reject the logic and methods of natural sciences and argue that in order to discover the meanings people give to their actions we need to see the world from their viewpoint.
Since the characteristics of social reality depend upon the meaningful actions of social actors, interpretivists believe that the validity of research will depend upon the sociologist being able to sensitively and accurately interpret and understand the social actor. To this end, the preconceived categories of positivist sociology are regarded as an obstacle not an aid to sociological research. They inevitably distort social behaviour because in an attempt to measure social facts objectively, they pre-empt the social actor’s point of view. For interpretivists, research therefore involves abandoning the detachment and objectivity favoured by positivists and instead putting ourselves in the place of the social actor, using what Weber calls Verstehen
For this reason, they emphasise the usefulness of qualitative research methods (such as participant observative, unstructured interviews and personal documents) as they help to breakdown barriers between sociologists and those they study as the techniques are more humanistic and help to gain richer, more personal, in-depth and detailed insight
Explain interpretivism and suicide in relation to Douglas
The interactionists Douglas (1967) rejects the positivist idea of external social facts determining out behaviour. He argues that individuals have free will and they choose how to act on the basis of meanings. Therefore to understand suicide, we must uncover its meanings for those involved, instead of imposing our meanings onto the situation. Douglas critiques Durkheim’s reliance on quantitative data from official statistics arguing that there are not objective facts, but simply social constructions resulting from the way coroners label certain deaths as suicides. Instead Douglas advocates for the use of qualitative data to understand suicide
Explain interpretivism and suicide in relation to Atkinson’s ethnomethodologist view
The ethnomethodologist Atkinson (1978) also rejects the idea that external social facts that lie in society determine behaviour. He claims that the only thing we can study about suicide is the way that the living make sense of deaths - the interpretive procedures coroners use to classify deaths. Ethnomethodologists argue that members of society have a stock of taken-for-granted assumptions with which they make sense of situations, including deaths. For Atkinson, the sociologist’s role is to uncover what this knowledge is and how coroners use it to arrive at a verdict
State criticisms of positivism
- sociology never can nor should try to be a science
- sociologists can rarely produce the kind of controlled conditions for study such as those of scientist’s laboratory
- Research findings are not verifiable by other sociologists as the research situation can never be precisely replicated
- It is impossible to quantify human behaviour in the same way research in different ways
- The meanings that people attach to events and actions are internal and cannot be directly measured
- Human action depends on individual interpretations
- The design of hypotheses to test imposes the views of the researcher on what is discovered
Explain methodological differences in sociology
There are methodological differences in sociology which give rise to ‘different’ sociologies. Positivists and Interpretivists have very different assumptions and approaches regarding how best to gain knowledge about the workings of society. They assume different epistemological positions (a philosophical theory of knowledge relating to different schools of though). All sociological approaches assume some epistemological position e.g. positivism and interpretivism have very different assumptions and approaches to thinking about the social world and human behaviour. Epistemological issues influence the ontological position adopted by a sociologist. Ontology relates to a philosophical project and its assumptions about how best to understand and explain the social world. Positivists and Interpretivists have different assumptions about how best to explain and research the social world.
Explain the realist approach to science in relation to Sayer’s view
Whilst accepting that there are basic differences between the social and the natural world, realists maintain that a social science is possible.
Realists, BHASKAR (1979) and SAYER (1984) believe: that it is both possible and desirable for sociology to be scientific - they see physical and social sciences are similar.
Sayer argues that some sciences have closed system in which all variables can be measured. An example of a closed system is a laboratory. Sciences like physics and chemistry have the advantage of being able to create closed systems in which conditions can be fixed and variables controlled. However, many sciences operate in open systems where all variables cannot be controlled and measured nor can precise predications be made.
For example, meteorology (study of weather) is a natural science which operates in an open system. As a result it is difficult to predict the weather after the event in terms of underlying mechanisms.
Sayer therefore rejects Popper’s falsification view that a scientific theory must make precise predictions as realists argue that sociology can be a science by operating in a similar way to meteorology.
He believes that sociology is scientific but because societies are complex open systems, it is impossible to make precise predictions.
From a realist point of view, this does not rule out sociology as a science as it is still possible to explain human behaviour in terms of underlying structures and mechanisms
Explain the realist view on sociology being a science in relation to KEAT and URRY view
Furthermore, KEAT and URRY (1982) argue that some sciences deal with things that cannot be directly observed and therefore reject the positivist view that science confines itself to studying the observable. They argue that sociology can still be seen as scientific even if it studies unobservable meanings and motives.
Realists believe that scientists try to discover the underlying structures and processes that cause unobservable events (for example evolution)
Sociologists try to do exactly the same looking for social structures and processes (for example, social change)
Realists therefore argue that much sociology is scientific
Why are there conflicting ideas about the scientific status of sociology?
There seems to be conflicting ideas about the scientific status of sociology. Those who have attempted to model sociology on the natural sciences do so in an attempt to claim objectivity for the subject - as science is accepted as being objective. They see the scientific method as the route to empirical truth about the social world. However, many sociologists and philosophers have developed a powerful critique of science and its status and this critique has major implications for the desire of sociology to claim scientific status
Why do sociologists such as Kaplan criticise science?
Some sociologists critique science arguing that science does not follow any single methodology. They claim it takes place in a context and often does not involve an objective search for truth. They claim that what scientists say they do and what they actually do are two very different things.
This is illustrated by KAPLAN (1964) who distinguishes between:
- Reconstructed logics: the methods scientists claim to use
- Logics in use: the actual methods they use
According to KAPLAN guesses and hunches, accidents and mistakes contribute to the creation of scientific knowledge and therefore despite our conventional ideas regarding science he claims it cannot always be understood as objective knowledge. LYNCH (1983) illustrates this by showing how scientists studying rats brains ignored slides that contradicted their theories. He claims that some scientists look for evidence to confirm theories, ignoring evidence that might falsify them.
What factors are science influenced by according to Gomm?
According to GOMM (1982), science is influenced by social factors, environmental concerns, politics, economic constraints and cultural norms, practices and guidelines. Scientists are therefore understood as being shaped by the very context that they are working in. Additionally, the nature of scientific research is such that sponsorship impinges upon the objectivity of the projects that scientists are working on. In this way, science cannot be understood as the detached pursuit of objective knowledge,
Why does Kuhn criticise the scientific nature of science and whether sociology being a science has implications?
KUHN (1962) is a historian of science and his ideas have important implications for sociology. He argues that the ‘scientific’ nature of science itself questioned. He rejects the idea that there exists one scientific approach or standardised procedure and rejects the conventional view which sees science as the progressive accumulation of knowledge based on the testing and proving or disproving of a hypothesis.
What does Kuhn mean by a paradigm?
Kuhn claims that scientific communities develop a commitment to a particular paradigm. A paradigm is shared by members of a given scientific community and defines what their science is. It provides a set of shared beliefs about some aspect of the physical world in terms of how it works; it dictates how to study it and how to interpret evidence. A paradigm therefore provides the complete framework within which scientists operate and he claims that scientists are committed to operating within a paradigm rather than falsifying it.
Ideas from outside the paradigm are normally dismissed. However, during scientific revolutions, anomalies which the paradigm cannot explain come to the fore. One paradigm is not open to replaced by another and science returns to its normal state, in which the paradigm is not open to question. An example is the move from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. However, in the main scientists conformity to the paradigm is rewarded and career success, while non-conformity may mean their work goes unpublished.
What does Kuhn’s ideas of paradigm suggest on whether sociology can be seen as pre-paradigmatic or as a science?
From this point of view, sociology can be seen as pre-paradigmatic because there are a variety of competing paradigms (or perspectives) such as Functionalism, Marxism, Feminism etc. For Kuhn, sociology could only become a science if such basic disagreements were resolved. Reflecting on these observations it may not even be desirable for sociology to become scientific in Kuhn’s sense, because the conflict between perspectives is a critical element in the subject.
state anderson et al’s criticism of Kuhn on science
Anderson et al (1986) criticise Kuhn for underestimating the extent of disagreement between scientists and question whether his approach has much relevance to sociology. Nevertheless, this critique of science raises questions about the subjective rather than objective nature of the discipline.
Explain the relevance of Ann Oakley ‘from here to maternity’ (1979)
Ann Oakley ‘from here to maternity’ (1979):
The aim of this book was to look at the experience of becoming a mother in modern British society. Oakley argues that this, rather than marriage is the point at which gender has the most impact on women’s lives
Oakley’s interest in her research topic is both academic and personal, she makes no claims to scientific objectivity in her choice of topic’ - ‘I am a feminist, an academic sociologist and a woman with children. I am not a feminist until I had children’. , ‘personal dramas provoke ideas that generate books and research projects’ , ‘academic research projects bear an intimate relationship to the researchers life’
She discusses her own experiences in her research.
Personal commitment to a research project inevitably presents problems - ‘ I began to confuse my roles - researcher, pregnant woman, mother, feminist, participant observer and so on’
Prior to main research Oakley spent six months as an observer in the London hospital from which she chose her sample of women.
Selecting her sample - sample was selected to enable general points to be made about the experiences of first-time motherhood and therefore certain groups of people were excluded. Confining the sample to one hospital inevitably presented problems of representativeness.
Conducting the interviews - The interviews were all conducted by Oakley herself and included a number of very open questions which encouraged the interviewees to discuss their own feelings fully. Some of these questions were extremely personal in nature. Questions were followed up with supplementary questions
At the end of the book Oakley discusses interviews as a method of gaining sociological information. She argues that the interview is often presented as a clinical research tool, by which an objective interviewer asks questions of a passive interviewee. The answers can then be used to compare people and identify patterns. The process of interviewing - neither the nature of the questions asked nor the interaction between interviewer and interviewee is supposedly has an influence on the data produced. On the contrary she argues that the interview is inevitably a reactive research tool which itself can change reality
Explain the debate on objectivity and values in sociology
Scientists are viewed as producing true knowledge, free from prejudice and taking a detached and objective approach to their research - they do not allow their subjective values to get in the way of discovering the facts. However, every member of society has value. This has led to the debate on whether sociological can study society objectively, without bias, unaffected by their own personal views and values and whether sociological research can be ‘value free’ - free from contamination or distortion by their views.
summarise the debate on whether sociology can be value free debate
Positivist/classical sociology argue that it is both possible and desirable to keep subjective values out of the research in the same way as natural scientists are said to do. Only in this way can produce true, scientific knowledge about society.
Interpretivists argue that because sociologists are humans (with values) studying other humans, it is impossible to keep personal values out of one’s research.
Committed sociology go further than interpretivists arguing that it is actually desirable for sociologists to use their values to improve society through their work hence they are referred to as ‘committed sociology’
Explain the positivism/classical sociological contribution to the debate on whether sociology can be value free
POSTIVISM / CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY:
The early positivists, COMTE and DURKHEIM shared the enlightenment modernist view of the role of sociology. As the science of society, sociologists would be able to say objectively and with scientific certainty what was really best for society so that social problems can be solved and human life can be improved.
Marx saw himself as a scientist and believed his method of historical analysis would help ‘deliver’ a good society. However, by the mid (20th positivists argued that their own values were irrelevant to their research. This was mainly a reflection of their desire to be scientific). Science is concerned with matters of fact, not value - with ‘is’ questions, not ‘ought’ questions. Therefore, sociology should remain morally neutral and value free, their job being to simply establish the objective and empirical truth about people’s behaviour.
What did critics argue about positivist/classical sociology desire to make sociology scientific?
Critics argued that this reflected a desire to make sociology respectable. Science has high prestige in society and therefore emulating it would raise sociology’s status. This was particularly important in the early (20th century, when sociology was becoming established as an academic discipline.
Explain Interpretivism’s contribution to the debate on whether sociology can be value free?
Many interpretivist sociologists argue that absolute value neutrality is impossible. WEBER argued that values inevitably guide research. He believed that values were bound to influence what topics sociologists think are relevant and important enough to study. Taking the idea from phenomenology that social reality is made up of a meaningless infinity of facts that make it impossible to study it in its totality - therefore researchers select certain facts to study in terms of their ‘value relevance’ to them.
WEBER argues that sociologists values may also influence which aspects of a topic they study. However, whilst values dictate what aspect of reality to study, sociologists must be as objective and unbiased when they are actually doing their research and collecting the facts. Nevertheless, he recognises that values become influential again when sociologists come to interpret the data. The facts are set in a theoretical framework so that conclusions can be drawn and the choice of the theoretical framework or perspective is inevitably influenced by the individual sociologist’s values.
What does Gouldner argue in support of Weber’s view on whether sociology can be a science?
Supporting Weber, GOULDNER argues that all research is inevitably influenced by values. The sociologists own personal values deriving from their background, upbringing, social status etc. means research is unlikely to be value free. Furthermore, GOULDNER also argues that different sociological theoretical perspectives can be seen as embodying different assumptions and values about how society should be, what topics should be studied and what methods should be used.
What other ways can sociological be influenced according to interpretivists?
Furthermore, most sociological research is funded by government departments, businesses and voluntary organisations. Often the funding body controls the direction of the research and the questions asked. Therefore, sociological research is likely to embody the values and interests of their paymasters. In some cases funding bodies may prevent the publication of the research if its findings prove unacceptable.
Accepting that facts and values cannot be separated in sociology, WEBER argued that sociologists must be explicit about their values so that others can see if unconscious bias is present in out interpretation of out data. Supporting this, PHILIPS (1973) argues that sociologists should bring their values out into the open so that others are aware of any potential bias to ensure transparency. This reflective stance can be clearly reflected in the work of Oakley.
Why do committed sociologists argue about research findings?
Research findings often have very real effects on people’s lives but sociologists and scientists sometimes choose to ignore the uses to which their work is put. As a citizen and member of society, WEBER argues that values influence how sociological findings are used. He argued that sociologists and scientists must not dodge the moral and political issues their work raises by hiding behind words such as ‘objectivity’ or ‘value freedom’ and must take moral responsibility for how that research is used
Explain committed sociology’s contribution to whether sociology is value free debate
Supporting Weber’s viewpoint, GOULDNER argued that by the 1950s, American sociologists in particular had become ‘spiritless technicians’. Earlier in the century sociology had been a critical discipline challenging accepted authority. However, by the 1950s sociologists were no longer problem takers who hired themselves out to government and other organisations to solve their problems for them. Gouldner argues that by leaving their own values behind, sociologists were simply hired hands that would not rock the boat by criticising or questioning their paymasters. This is exactly the attitude weber was criticising when he said that sociologists must take moral responsibility for the effects of their own work.
Explain Committed sociologists view argue about value neutrality?
Many sociologists argue that value neutrality is not desirable in sociology, The issue of commitment that WEBER raised has remained at the centre of debates about the place of the sociologists values in research. Modern positivists have shied away from any value commitments.
However, Marxists, Feminists and Interactionists have argued for a ‘committed sociology’ in which the sociologists spell out the importance of their personal values to their research and they believe it is desirable for sociologists to use their values to improve society through their work.
MYDAL argues that sociologists should not only spell out their values, as WEBER recommends - they should also openly take sides by espousing the values and interests of particular individuals or groups. By not choosing a side, the sociologist is in fact taking the side of the more powerful against the less powerful. Therefore, committed sociologists who advocate this approach such as MYDAL and GOULDNER argue that it is neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of their research
In relation to the committed sociology perspective what does Becker argue?
The interactionist BECKER poses the question, whose side are we are?. He argues that traditional positivists and functionalists tended to take the viewpoint of powerful, however he argues that instead of seeing things from the perspective of these ‘over-dogs’, sociologists should take a compassionate stance and take the side of the ‘under-dogs’. This is partly because their story needs to be told and by identifying with the underdog and giving them a voice we can reveal a previously hidden side of social reality. This emphasis on identifying and empathising with the powerless has clear links to the qualitative research methods advocated by interactionists which they believe reveal the meanings of these outsiders.
Why does Gouldner criticise Becker on the focus of sociological research?
Gouldner criticises becker for taking a sentimental approach to disadvantaged groups confining his analysis simply to describing their views and experiences. He argues for a Marxist approach and believes sociologists should take the side of those ‘fighting back’ - the political radicals struggling to change society. Sociology should be committed to ending oppression by unmasking the ways the powerful maintain their position.
What is the postmodernist view on whether sociology is value free
Relativism argues that there is no independent way of judging whether any view is truer than any other and there is no absolute or objective truth - just truths plural. Postmodernists take a relativist view of knowledge. They reject the idea that any one account of the social world is superior to another and see perspectives that claim to have the truth as a meta narrative. However, ironically this means we shouldn’t believe what postmodernism says either. In practice, sociologists rarely go this far and argue that there is a real factual world ‘out there’ in which for example, ethnic background can affect a person’s life chances and so on. Regardless of the sociologists values or perspective we can observe and record these facts. Once these facts have been established. In the end it matters less whether a theory contains certain values than whether it can explain the world that we observe.
According to Marshall what is social policy?
Marshall (1975) defines social policy as the actions of government that have a direct impact on the welfare of citizens - by providing them with services, support or income e.g NHS, free school meals, bursary, universal credit, free education, national curriculum etc.
Many social policies are designed to address and overcome social problems.
what is meant by a social problem
Worsley (1977) defines social problems as any social behaviour that causes public friction and/or private misery - and calls for collective action to solve it e.g racism, discrimination, poverty, crime etc.
Governments are called on to produce and implement social policy to address these social problems.
What does Worsley mean by sociological problems?
According to Worsley a sociological problems is ‘any pattern of relationships that calls for an explanation’.
Basically, it is any behaviour that we wish to make sense of. It could be a social problem but it also includes behaviour which society doesn’t normally see as a problem e.g marriages decreasing, anti-school subcultures etc.
Therefore ‘normal behaviour’ is just as interesting to sociologists as behaviour that is viewed as a constituting a problem.
What do some sociologists argue the role of social policy should be?
Many believe that the whole point of sociology is to try and make a difference; to engage in making policy proposals based on informed research in an attempt to improve society. For example GOULDNER and critical social scientists all believe that sociology should try to influence social policy.
Reflecting this, Mills argued that sociology should not be simply the accumulation of facts but it should explain social problems and suggest policy solutions.
What difference ways did GIDDENs identify in which sociology relates to social policy?
- sociology can inform policy makers of viewpoints other than their own and can directly influence social policy
- sociological research helps assess the results of policy initiatives
- sociology may be influence by social policy
- policy makers might use sociology selectively to justify policies.
Explain the numbers of ways sociology has influenced social policy
- The social democratic perspective on education encouraged the introduction of comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 1970s
- feminist campaigns have led to changes in education and have led to offences such as domestic violence being taken more seriously by the police
- The right realist perspective on crime by Wilson led to the introduction of ASBOs aimed at preventing areas from deteriorating due to antisocial behaviour
- Research by MIDDLETON ET AL led to the introduction of EMAS to increase participation routes.
Why does the influence of sociology vary
Reflecting on some of the points, the influence of sociology varies depending on the government in power. New right influenced conservative governments between 1979 and 1997 were generally hostile to sociologists apart from the handful of right wing sociologists who supported their views
In contrast, new labour governments between 1997 and 2010 took sociology more seriously and sociology has influenced the shape of some policies in areas such as criminal justice, welfare, education and health
Explain the positivism and functionalism perspective on social policy
POSITIVISM / FUNCTIONALISM PERSPECTIVE
Reflecting the Enlightenment project, both positivists and functionalists believe sociology should be used to improve society by discovering both the cause of social problems and scientifically based solutions to them. They see the state as serving the interests of society as a whole - producing and implementing rational social policies for the good of all. For example, educational policies promote equal opportunities and social integration and housing policies assist families in performing its functions more effectively.
They believe the role of the sociologist is to provide the state with objective, scientific information that it can use to base it policies on. However, functionalists favour social policies that are sometimes referred to as ‘piecemeal social engineering’ - in other words the support a cautious approach to addressing one specific issue at a time. This approach has been criticised particularly by social democratic theorists and Marxists as they argue social policies only solve problems on a small scale and the fact they support policies that are not radical or ambitious enough to solve and address real big problems.
Explain the social democratic perspective of social policy
SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE:
In direct contrast to the ‘piecemeal social engineering’ view, this perspective favours a more radical approach in order to eradicate social problems in society - a redistribution of wealth and income to eradicate other problems in society.
Sociologists adopting this perspective such as Townsend (1979) argue that sociologists should research social problems and make policy recommendations to eliminate them. He research poverty and on the basis of his findings he made recommendations for policies such as fairer and higher benefit levels and more public spending on health, education and welfare services.
Similarly, the Black Report (1980) commissioned by the Labour government in 1977 on class inequalities in health made 37 far-reaching policy recommendations for reducing deep-rooted inequalities including free school meals for all children, improved working conditions and improvements in housing.
However, Thatcher’s conservative government refused to implement the report’s recommendations on the grounds of cost and tried to restrict its publication - limited circulation - highlighted class differences in life expectancy
