Theory and Methods Flashcards
What is Comte’s view?
AO1
- Sociology is ‘the queen of the sciences’
- It is possible and desirable to use scientific methods to understand human behaviour
- This enables us to gain true, objective data that mirrors that of the sciences
- We gain scientific, sociological conclusions on social facts
What is Durkheim’s view?
AO2
- Science generates patterns through tests and measures which allows us to identify trends and draw scientific conclusions - sociologists do this too
- Sociologists draw conclusions through indicative reasoning and careful observation and get results through verification
- e.g. he verified patterns in his study of suicide - observed 4 reasons for suicide: anomic, fatalistic, altruistic, egoistic
Why does Popper think sociology isn’t a science?
AO1/3
- Fallacy of induction: we can never prove something true as all it takes is one thing to prove the whole theory wrong. Sociology is too dependent on observation e.g. if we observed a million white swans we could conclude that all swans are white, but it would take just one black swan to disprove this theory. You can never prove a theory true through observation alone as they lack reliability
- Falsificationism: science is the opposite of verification - scientific statement can be falsified. A good theory must: be a bold statement we can attempt to disprove in multiple situations, and withstand attempts to be disproved e.g. water boiling at 100 degrees. Sociological concepts are difficult to test and can’t be falsified e.g. false class consciousness is a bold statement but it can’t be disproven - you can only test to find more evidence of it
- Truth: “every scientific theory isn’t necessarily a true theory, it has just withstood attempts to prove it wrong”. Sociology doesn’t attempt to prove theories wrong and just proclaims a truth
- Science thrives in open societies where we have free expression and can challenge/falsify accepted ideas - sociological theories are a closed system
How can we evaluate Popper?
AO3
- All because most of sociology isn’t scientific doesn’t mean it can’t be
- Sociology can be scientific as long as they produce a hypothesis that can be falsified
- e.g. Ford hypothesised that comprehensive schooling will lead to social mixing and was able to falsify this through empirical testing and found that there wasn’t due to setting and streaming
- All because theories like Marxism aren’t testable, doesn’t mean that they are worthless - they may become testable
Why does Khun think sociology is not a scientist?
AO1/2
- Unlike sociologists, scientists accept one paradigm and don’t consider rival perspectives
- Scientists work in paradigms as conformity is rewarded and non-conformity is often punished by work not being published or dismissed
- e.g. Velokovsky’s ‘Colliding World Theory’ being boycotted
- When scientists obtain contradicting findings confidence in paradigms declines which leads to a paradigm shift
- e.g. earth being flat -> earth being a sphere
- Sociology is pre-paradigmatic - can’t be a science as it can’t have a paradigm shift as this would need radical and liberal perspectives to agree
How can we evaluate Khun?
AO3
Postmodernists: sociology shouldn’t operate on scientific paradigms as these are just metanarratives - there is no all ecompassing truth
Why do realists see sociology as a science?
AO1/2
Sayer, Keat, and Urry:
- Have a new reason for why sociology IS a science. Rejects positivist view that sociology is a science as it’s only concerned with observable things AND rejects interpretivist view that sociology isn’t a science as it researches observable things
- Closed systems = the researcher can control and measure all variables to make predictions
- In open systems the researcher can’t control and measure all relevant variables and so can’t make precise predictions - science can be an open system e.g. seismology, black holes, big bang and so are most sociological theory
- Sociology isn’t a closed system but this isn’t required in order to be a science - it is a social science and much like natural sciences it attempts to explain the cause of events in terms of underlying structures and processes - these structures are unobservable but sociologists like scientists in open systems, observe their effects
Who thinks sociology can and should be value free?
AO1/2
- Comte: as the ‘queen of the sciences’ sociology uses scientific methods to explain human behaviour
- Durkheim: sociology can create an objective world view and better society when not dependent on subjective interpretations
- Marx: wanted to prove capitalism caused exploitation scientifically - value free
What does Weber think about values in sociology?
AO1
It is impossible for sociology to be value free but sociologists should be value neutral
- Values should be a guide to research: sociologists should avoid the meaningless infinity of facts that dominate society and choose topics of interest to themself and society
- Data collection and hypothesis testing should be objective as possible - sociologists should keep their values out of this
- Values can be reinserted into the interpretation of data as sociologists must put results withina theoretical framework to understand the significance and draw conclusions
- Sociologists must spell out their values so it is clear to us and there is no unconscious bias within the research
- Sociologists have a duty to not hide behind objectivity in their research and take moral responsibility for the consequences of their research like how Einstein created nuclear technology but spoke out against nuclear war
Why do other theories think sociology isn’t value free?
AO1/3
- New Right: Sociology isn’t value free due to the left wing bias. Marsland: “Sociology is the enemy within … biased one-sideness of contemporary Sociology”
- Feminists: Sociology isn’t value free due to it’s male bias. Heidensohn: sociology is malestream, Oakley: “sociology reduces women to a side issue from the start”
What is Gouldner’s view?
AO3
In the 1950s sociologists deliberately left their values out of research for 2 main reasons:
1. The desire to appear scientific: to gain more status and prestige within the scientific community
2. Employment by government, business, and military: sociologists used to be problem makers who were critical of societal institutions, now they are problem takers who aim to solve their problems and compromise by leaving their values out of research
“Those who claim to be value free are merely gutless non-academics with few moral scruples who have sold out to the establishment in return for a pleasant university lifestyle”
Who else thinks sociology isn’t and shouldn’t be value free?
AO1/2
- Interpretivists: sociology investigates individuals subjective experiences - to understand individual behaviour we need an individual POV - verstehen requires taking on values
- Gomm: “a value free sociology is impossible … the very idea is unsociology - to study society is studying norms and values - sociology can’t be value free when it’s literally interested in values
- Becker: underdog theory - we need to be committed sociologists and take the side of the underdog. Traditional sociology takes the side of the powerful overdog e.g. police, teachers, doctors, etc
- Goffman: to understand mental health we need to take the patient’s side not the doctor’s
What is the marxist view of sociology being a science?
AO1/2/3
- Althusser: sociology is a science - structural neomarxism scientifically studies capitalist structures
- Taylor, Walton, and Young: new criminology - an interpretivist marxist way of thinking - “rule makers are also the greatest rule breakers”
EVAL:
- Althusser is contradictory - how can you be objective and also want to promote radical change? Ironically inspired a lot of interpretivist theory
- Postmodernism: both sides of the debate are metanarratives - there is no all-encompassing truth
Durkheim’s Suicide Study?
INCLUDES ANALYSIS AND EVAL
AO2/3
- Aimed to study social facts e.g. beliefs, norms, values, and culture of Denmark, England, and France and how this impacted suicide rates
- Denmark had highest and England had the lowest
- Was able to identify social links e.g. level of integration into society, occupation, and religion
- Trends: males = higher rate, non-religious = higher, Protestant = higher than Catholics, married/in relationships = lower
- Concluded that Protestants (and these other groups) are less integrated
- ANALYSIS: Men are still more likely to commit suicide at an almost 2:1 ratio, Catholic countries like Greece, Mexico, Spain, and Portugal have the lowest rates of suicide
- EVAL: Coroner bias, unscientific - Durkheim just verified his assumptions, no verstehen and based on his assumptions rather than actual evidence on why people commit suicide
How does Douglas criticise Durkheim’s suicide study?
coroner reports are value laden
AO3
- Durkheim didn’t give enough consideration to how official statistics on suicide are collected - they contain gross inaccuracies
- Officials interpret the death to decide the cause - what deaths show up in suicide statistics is dependent on this process of interpretation and decision-making
- The criteria coroners use to diagnose death creates issues in statistics
