SOCIOLOGY & SCIENCE .
POSITIVISM
Pattern, Laws & Inductive Reasoning
✦ For positivists, reality is not random, but patterned. TMT we can observe, identify + measure these patterns.
✦ The patterns can all be explained by finding the facts that cause them.
✦ They seek to discover the causes of the patterns they observe.
✦ Favour ‘macro’ / structural explanations of social phenomena e.g Functionalism.
> TIB they see society + it’s structures as something that exists outside the human mind.
✦ They believe real laws are discoverable that can determine how society works (The method for this is Induction)
✦ Because of inductive reasoning (Through many observations, we come up with a theory). Many observations will
verify a theory (Verificationism)
Objective Quantitative Research
✦ Sociology should take the experimental method that is used in the natural sciences for research.
✦ This is so they can uncover the + measure the patterns of behaviour + can make mathematically precise patterns
of behaviour. This inc questionnaires, structured interviews + official state >> Reliable.
✦ Researchers should be detached + objective, not subjective.
✦ But, in sociology, researchers are dealing with people = a danger that the researcher may have some influence on
the research E.g influencing the interviewees’ answers.
An Example: Positivism & Suicide
✦ DURKHEIM studied suicide to show that sociology could be a science.
✦ He used quantitative data from official stat + found there were patterns in suicide rates.
✦ Rates for Protestant were higher than Catholics.
✦ The social facts that were responsible for determining the suicide rates were the levels of integration & regulation.
✦ Thus, he claims to have discovered a ‘real law’ that integration + regulation affect the rates of suicide.
INTERPRETIVISM
✦ Should not be objective when studying humans + sociology is not a science.
The Subject Matter Of Sociology
✦ The subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action. We can only understand it through meanings of
actors.
✦ There are fundamental differences between natural sciences + sociology:
> Natural Science: Studies matter + can be explained in a straightforward manner. E.g Newton’s apple, it can’t be
studied in the same way that a human can (we have conscious + choice)
> Sociology: Studies people, who have consciousness. Humans are not puppet + can’t have facts made about them.
Verstehen & Qualitative Research
✦ TMT they reject logic + methods of natural sciences. Instead, we need to look at the meanings people give to their
actions + see the world from their viewpoint.
They favour qualitative methods.
✦ TMT we must put ourselves in the place of the actor (verstehen) ஃ
Types Of Interpretivism:
# I nteractionists: Believe we can have causal explanation, but do not reject having a hypothesis.
GLASER & STRAUSS favour a ‘bottom up approach’ / grounded theory > rather than entering the research with
a fixed hypothesis, our ideas will gradually emerge from our research.
# Phenomenologists & Ethnomethodologists: Reject the possibility of causal explanations of human behaviour.
Society is not a real thing out there determining our actions. Society is not an external force, but exists only in
consciousness.
1
,Interpretivism & Suicide:
✦ Interactionist > DOUGLAS > individuals have free will. TMT to understand suicide, we must uncover its meanings
for those involved.
✦ Criticises Durkheim’s use of quant data. Argues it is a social construction due to the coroner's label to certain
deaths as suicide.
✦ Instead, we should use qualitative data from case studies of suicides. To understand their meanings.
EV: ATKINSON > we can never know the ‘real rate’ of suicide, even using qualitative methods, as we can never
know for sure what meanings the person who committed suicide held.
Postmodernism, Feminism & Scientific Sociology
✦ Reject scientific sociology, because they see science as a meta narrative.
✦ Feminists also shared the same view. The investigation for one theory excludes many groups of women.
Quantitative methods are oppressive + cannot capture the reality of women’s experiences.
✦ Some also argues that science is an undesirable model for sociology to follow, because science has not always led
to the progress that positivists believed it would. E.g the emergence of ‘risk society’.
TMT if science produces such -ve consequences, it would be inappropriate for sociology to adopt science as a model.
KARL POPPER: How Science Grows
✦ What makes scientific knowledge unique?
✦ Why has scientific knowledge been able to grow so spectacularly in just a few century?
The Fallacy Of Induction
✦ Popper argues we should reject verification because of the fallacy (error) of induction.
E.g. If we observe a large number of swan, all of which were white, we may conclude that ‘All swans are white’ .
✦ It will be easy for us to verify this, because many swans are white. But, we cannot prove a
ll swans are white, + a
single observation of a black swan will destroy the theory.
✦ TMT we can never prove a theory by producing more observations to verify it.
Falsificationism
✦ What makes science unique is not verification, but falsification (proved wrong by evidence)
✦ For Popper, a good theory has 2 features:
In principle (theory) It is falsifiable, but when tested, it It is bold + makes big generalisations that precisely
stands up to all attempts to disprove it. predict a large no. of events.
✦ TMT A good theory is not necessarily a true theory, it is one that has resist attempts to falsify it so far.
Criticism & The Open Society.
✦ For a theory to be falsifiable, it be open to criticism from other scientists. TMT science is a p
ublic activity, where
everything is open to criticism. TIW scientific knowledge grow so rapidly.
✦ Science grows in open/liberal societies, because these societies believe in free expression + the right to challenge
accepted ideas.
✦ By contrast, closed societies are dominated by an official belief system that claim to have the monopoly of the
truth. Such belief system struggle to grow.
Implications For Sociology
✦ Believes much of sociology is unscientific because may of its theories are unfalsifiable.
E.g Marxism predicts that there will be a revolution to a classless society, but this has not occurred yet because of
F.F. TMT the prediction cannot be falsified. If there is a revolution, Marxism is c
orrect, if there isn’t, Marxism is still
correct.
✦ But, sociology can be scientific. It is capable of producing hypotheses that can be falsified.
E.g FORD hypothesised comprehensive schooling would produce social mixing of pupils from different social
classes. She was able to test + falsify this through empirical research.
✦ TMT Popper does not believe that untestable ideas are worthless. Sociology may have more untestable ideas than
2
,the natural science, because sociology has not been in existence as long as natural sciences have.
Thomas KUHN: Scientific Paradigms
The Paradigm
✦ What makes science unique is a paradigm. Science cannot exist without a shared paradigm.
✦ Paradigm > shared by members of a scientific community. It provides a basic framework of assumption, methods
+ techniques that the members should follow/use.
✦ If they don’t conform to the paradigm, their work may go unpublished (TIW Dr Velikovsky’s theory was ignored)
✦ TMT a paradigm is a set of norms, as it tells scientists how they should think.
✦ Compared paradigm to puzzle solving. The paradigm provides the questions + broadly, the answers.
✦ It is the scientist’s job to fill out the detail.
Scientific Revolutions
✦ But, not all puzzle solving is successful. There may be some anomalies.
✦ When these anomalies build up, the paradigm is weakened. This leads to arguments about the basic assumptions
of the paradigm.
✦ Science now enters a phase of crisis.
✦ But, then a scientific revolution will occur.
✦ When there 2 competing paradigms, eventually one does win + become accepted by the scientific community,
allowing normal science to resume, but with a new set of basic assumptions.
✦ TMT While for Popper, a scientific community is about falsification, for Kuhn, the scientific community is about
scientists conforming to the paradigm, so they can make progress.
Implications For Sociology
✦ Sociology is currently pre paradigmatic + pre scientific, as it has many perspectives.
✦ There is no shared paradigm.
✦ E.g Funct disagree with Marxists about basic questions e.g whether society is based on consensus or conflict.
✦ Even within perspective there are often disagreement about key concepts + issues.
✦ Sociology can only become a science if these disagreement were resolved.
✦ P/m may argue that a paradigm is not desirable in sociology, because it sounds like a meta narrative - A
dominating view of what reality is like.
REALISM, SCIENCE & SOCIOLOGY
✦ A 3rd view of science come from realists.
✦ KEAT & URRY > there are similarities between sociology + natural sciences, in terms of the amount of control he
research has over the variables in research.
✦ They distinguish between open systems + closed systems:
Closed System: Open Systems:
- Researcher can control + measure all variable. TMT - Researcher cannot control + measure all variable. TMT
they can make precise predictions. Often uses lab they cannot make precise predictions. E.g A metrologist
experiments cannot predict the weather 100% accurately.
✦ Realist > Sociologists study open systems, where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions.
E.g We cannot predict crime rate precisely, as there are too many variables involved, most of which cannot be
controlled, measures or identified.
Underlying Structures.
✦ Science is not only concerned with observable phenomena, it often assumes the existence of unobservable
structures E.g Physicists cannot directly observe the inside of a black hole in space. This goes against positivists.
✦ Interpretivist say meanings cannot be directly observed, + TIW sociology cannot be scientific
✦ But, if science can study unobservable phenomena, then this is not barrier to studying meanings scientifically.
✦ TMT both sociology + science attempt to explain causes of events in terms of the structures + observing the their
effects. E.g We cannot see social class, but we can observe its effects on people’s life chances.
✦ TMT Marxism can be seen as scientific because it sees underlying structure e.g capitalism, producing effects e.g
poverty.
✦ TST there is little difference between natural science + sociology, except that some natural science able to study
closed systems.
3
, OBJECTIVITY & VALUES IN SOCIOLOGY
.
➵ Some argues that it is possible + desirable to keep subjective values out of research to produce true, scientific
knowledge about society.
➵ Others argue, because sociologists are humans, studying other humans, it’s impossible to keep personal values
out of their research.
THE CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGISTS & VALUES
The Early Positivists
➵ E.g Comte & Durkheim - the creation of a better society was not a matter of subjective values or personal
opinions.
➵ As the science of society, sociology’s job was to discover the truth about how society works.
➵ Scientific sociology would reveal the correct society. TMT by discovering the truth about how society worked,
sociologists would be able to say how thing ought to be.
Karl Marx
➵ There is a debate over whether Karl Marx was a positivists.
➵ He saw himself as a scientist through his historical analysis & materialism.
➵ The role of Marx was to reveal the problems of capitalism & this can be seen as objective & scientific.
Max Weber
➵ Weber makes a sharp distinction between value judgement + facts.
➵ Argues we can’t obtain the one from the other.
E.g Research might show divorcees are more likely to commit suicide. But, this doesn’t necessarily lead
to the belief that we should make divorce harder to achieve.
➵ There is nothing about the fact that force us to accept the value. E.g we might argue that people have every right
to commit suicide (values), but none of these judgements are proven by the fact.
TST a value can neither be proved/disproved by facts.
➵ Weber sees an essential role for values in sociological research. His views can be divided into 4 parts:
Values As A Guide To Research
- Social reality is made up of a meaningless infinity of facts that make it impossible to study.
- But, how do we choose which facts to study?
- Weber > We choose by using our values. E.g Feminists value gender equality. This leads them to study women’s
oppression + to develop concept e.g Patriarchy.
Data Collection & Hypothesis Testing
- We must be objective when collecting facts. E.g We can not ask leading questions.
- Once we have gathered the facts, we can use them to test a hypothesis.
Values In The Interpretation Of Data
- Values are important when we interpret our findings from the data. The facts need to be in a theoretical
framework, so we can understand it’s significance + draw conclusions from them, this is influenced by our values.
Values & The Sociologist As A Citizen
- Research finding have real effects on people, but sociologists sometimes choose to ignore this.
TIB they say it’s their job to just conduct objective research + to discover the facts. It is for the public to decide
what use to make of their findings.
- But, Weber reject this view = says they should take moral responsibility for their findings. E.g Einstein’s theories
helped to make the atomic bomb possible, yet he spoke against nuclear weapons.
TST Weber sees values as relevant to the sociologist, in deciding what to research, interpreting the data + deciding
1
POSITIVISM
Pattern, Laws & Inductive Reasoning
✦ For positivists, reality is not random, but patterned. TMT we can observe, identify + measure these patterns.
✦ The patterns can all be explained by finding the facts that cause them.
✦ They seek to discover the causes of the patterns they observe.
✦ Favour ‘macro’ / structural explanations of social phenomena e.g Functionalism.
> TIB they see society + it’s structures as something that exists outside the human mind.
✦ They believe real laws are discoverable that can determine how society works (The method for this is Induction)
✦ Because of inductive reasoning (Through many observations, we come up with a theory). Many observations will
verify a theory (Verificationism)
Objective Quantitative Research
✦ Sociology should take the experimental method that is used in the natural sciences for research.
✦ This is so they can uncover the + measure the patterns of behaviour + can make mathematically precise patterns
of behaviour. This inc questionnaires, structured interviews + official state >> Reliable.
✦ Researchers should be detached + objective, not subjective.
✦ But, in sociology, researchers are dealing with people = a danger that the researcher may have some influence on
the research E.g influencing the interviewees’ answers.
An Example: Positivism & Suicide
✦ DURKHEIM studied suicide to show that sociology could be a science.
✦ He used quantitative data from official stat + found there were patterns in suicide rates.
✦ Rates for Protestant were higher than Catholics.
✦ The social facts that were responsible for determining the suicide rates were the levels of integration & regulation.
✦ Thus, he claims to have discovered a ‘real law’ that integration + regulation affect the rates of suicide.
INTERPRETIVISM
✦ Should not be objective when studying humans + sociology is not a science.
The Subject Matter Of Sociology
✦ The subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action. We can only understand it through meanings of
actors.
✦ There are fundamental differences between natural sciences + sociology:
> Natural Science: Studies matter + can be explained in a straightforward manner. E.g Newton’s apple, it can’t be
studied in the same way that a human can (we have conscious + choice)
> Sociology: Studies people, who have consciousness. Humans are not puppet + can’t have facts made about them.
Verstehen & Qualitative Research
✦ TMT they reject logic + methods of natural sciences. Instead, we need to look at the meanings people give to their
actions + see the world from their viewpoint.
They favour qualitative methods.
✦ TMT we must put ourselves in the place of the actor (verstehen) ஃ
Types Of Interpretivism:
# I nteractionists: Believe we can have causal explanation, but do not reject having a hypothesis.
GLASER & STRAUSS favour a ‘bottom up approach’ / grounded theory > rather than entering the research with
a fixed hypothesis, our ideas will gradually emerge from our research.
# Phenomenologists & Ethnomethodologists: Reject the possibility of causal explanations of human behaviour.
Society is not a real thing out there determining our actions. Society is not an external force, but exists only in
consciousness.
1
,Interpretivism & Suicide:
✦ Interactionist > DOUGLAS > individuals have free will. TMT to understand suicide, we must uncover its meanings
for those involved.
✦ Criticises Durkheim’s use of quant data. Argues it is a social construction due to the coroner's label to certain
deaths as suicide.
✦ Instead, we should use qualitative data from case studies of suicides. To understand their meanings.
EV: ATKINSON > we can never know the ‘real rate’ of suicide, even using qualitative methods, as we can never
know for sure what meanings the person who committed suicide held.
Postmodernism, Feminism & Scientific Sociology
✦ Reject scientific sociology, because they see science as a meta narrative.
✦ Feminists also shared the same view. The investigation for one theory excludes many groups of women.
Quantitative methods are oppressive + cannot capture the reality of women’s experiences.
✦ Some also argues that science is an undesirable model for sociology to follow, because science has not always led
to the progress that positivists believed it would. E.g the emergence of ‘risk society’.
TMT if science produces such -ve consequences, it would be inappropriate for sociology to adopt science as a model.
KARL POPPER: How Science Grows
✦ What makes scientific knowledge unique?
✦ Why has scientific knowledge been able to grow so spectacularly in just a few century?
The Fallacy Of Induction
✦ Popper argues we should reject verification because of the fallacy (error) of induction.
E.g. If we observe a large number of swan, all of which were white, we may conclude that ‘All swans are white’ .
✦ It will be easy for us to verify this, because many swans are white. But, we cannot prove a
ll swans are white, + a
single observation of a black swan will destroy the theory.
✦ TMT we can never prove a theory by producing more observations to verify it.
Falsificationism
✦ What makes science unique is not verification, but falsification (proved wrong by evidence)
✦ For Popper, a good theory has 2 features:
In principle (theory) It is falsifiable, but when tested, it It is bold + makes big generalisations that precisely
stands up to all attempts to disprove it. predict a large no. of events.
✦ TMT A good theory is not necessarily a true theory, it is one that has resist attempts to falsify it so far.
Criticism & The Open Society.
✦ For a theory to be falsifiable, it be open to criticism from other scientists. TMT science is a p
ublic activity, where
everything is open to criticism. TIW scientific knowledge grow so rapidly.
✦ Science grows in open/liberal societies, because these societies believe in free expression + the right to challenge
accepted ideas.
✦ By contrast, closed societies are dominated by an official belief system that claim to have the monopoly of the
truth. Such belief system struggle to grow.
Implications For Sociology
✦ Believes much of sociology is unscientific because may of its theories are unfalsifiable.
E.g Marxism predicts that there will be a revolution to a classless society, but this has not occurred yet because of
F.F. TMT the prediction cannot be falsified. If there is a revolution, Marxism is c
orrect, if there isn’t, Marxism is still
correct.
✦ But, sociology can be scientific. It is capable of producing hypotheses that can be falsified.
E.g FORD hypothesised comprehensive schooling would produce social mixing of pupils from different social
classes. She was able to test + falsify this through empirical research.
✦ TMT Popper does not believe that untestable ideas are worthless. Sociology may have more untestable ideas than
2
,the natural science, because sociology has not been in existence as long as natural sciences have.
Thomas KUHN: Scientific Paradigms
The Paradigm
✦ What makes science unique is a paradigm. Science cannot exist without a shared paradigm.
✦ Paradigm > shared by members of a scientific community. It provides a basic framework of assumption, methods
+ techniques that the members should follow/use.
✦ If they don’t conform to the paradigm, their work may go unpublished (TIW Dr Velikovsky’s theory was ignored)
✦ TMT a paradigm is a set of norms, as it tells scientists how they should think.
✦ Compared paradigm to puzzle solving. The paradigm provides the questions + broadly, the answers.
✦ It is the scientist’s job to fill out the detail.
Scientific Revolutions
✦ But, not all puzzle solving is successful. There may be some anomalies.
✦ When these anomalies build up, the paradigm is weakened. This leads to arguments about the basic assumptions
of the paradigm.
✦ Science now enters a phase of crisis.
✦ But, then a scientific revolution will occur.
✦ When there 2 competing paradigms, eventually one does win + become accepted by the scientific community,
allowing normal science to resume, but with a new set of basic assumptions.
✦ TMT While for Popper, a scientific community is about falsification, for Kuhn, the scientific community is about
scientists conforming to the paradigm, so they can make progress.
Implications For Sociology
✦ Sociology is currently pre paradigmatic + pre scientific, as it has many perspectives.
✦ There is no shared paradigm.
✦ E.g Funct disagree with Marxists about basic questions e.g whether society is based on consensus or conflict.
✦ Even within perspective there are often disagreement about key concepts + issues.
✦ Sociology can only become a science if these disagreement were resolved.
✦ P/m may argue that a paradigm is not desirable in sociology, because it sounds like a meta narrative - A
dominating view of what reality is like.
REALISM, SCIENCE & SOCIOLOGY
✦ A 3rd view of science come from realists.
✦ KEAT & URRY > there are similarities between sociology + natural sciences, in terms of the amount of control he
research has over the variables in research.
✦ They distinguish between open systems + closed systems:
Closed System: Open Systems:
- Researcher can control + measure all variable. TMT - Researcher cannot control + measure all variable. TMT
they can make precise predictions. Often uses lab they cannot make precise predictions. E.g A metrologist
experiments cannot predict the weather 100% accurately.
✦ Realist > Sociologists study open systems, where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions.
E.g We cannot predict crime rate precisely, as there are too many variables involved, most of which cannot be
controlled, measures or identified.
Underlying Structures.
✦ Science is not only concerned with observable phenomena, it often assumes the existence of unobservable
structures E.g Physicists cannot directly observe the inside of a black hole in space. This goes against positivists.
✦ Interpretivist say meanings cannot be directly observed, + TIW sociology cannot be scientific
✦ But, if science can study unobservable phenomena, then this is not barrier to studying meanings scientifically.
✦ TMT both sociology + science attempt to explain causes of events in terms of the structures + observing the their
effects. E.g We cannot see social class, but we can observe its effects on people’s life chances.
✦ TMT Marxism can be seen as scientific because it sees underlying structure e.g capitalism, producing effects e.g
poverty.
✦ TST there is little difference between natural science + sociology, except that some natural science able to study
closed systems.
3
, OBJECTIVITY & VALUES IN SOCIOLOGY
.
➵ Some argues that it is possible + desirable to keep subjective values out of research to produce true, scientific
knowledge about society.
➵ Others argue, because sociologists are humans, studying other humans, it’s impossible to keep personal values
out of their research.
THE CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGISTS & VALUES
The Early Positivists
➵ E.g Comte & Durkheim - the creation of a better society was not a matter of subjective values or personal
opinions.
➵ As the science of society, sociology’s job was to discover the truth about how society works.
➵ Scientific sociology would reveal the correct society. TMT by discovering the truth about how society worked,
sociologists would be able to say how thing ought to be.
Karl Marx
➵ There is a debate over whether Karl Marx was a positivists.
➵ He saw himself as a scientist through his historical analysis & materialism.
➵ The role of Marx was to reveal the problems of capitalism & this can be seen as objective & scientific.
Max Weber
➵ Weber makes a sharp distinction between value judgement + facts.
➵ Argues we can’t obtain the one from the other.
E.g Research might show divorcees are more likely to commit suicide. But, this doesn’t necessarily lead
to the belief that we should make divorce harder to achieve.
➵ There is nothing about the fact that force us to accept the value. E.g we might argue that people have every right
to commit suicide (values), but none of these judgements are proven by the fact.
TST a value can neither be proved/disproved by facts.
➵ Weber sees an essential role for values in sociological research. His views can be divided into 4 parts:
Values As A Guide To Research
- Social reality is made up of a meaningless infinity of facts that make it impossible to study.
- But, how do we choose which facts to study?
- Weber > We choose by using our values. E.g Feminists value gender equality. This leads them to study women’s
oppression + to develop concept e.g Patriarchy.
Data Collection & Hypothesis Testing
- We must be objective when collecting facts. E.g We can not ask leading questions.
- Once we have gathered the facts, we can use them to test a hypothesis.
Values In The Interpretation Of Data
- Values are important when we interpret our findings from the data. The facts need to be in a theoretical
framework, so we can understand it’s significance + draw conclusions from them, this is influenced by our values.
Values & The Sociologist As A Citizen
- Research finding have real effects on people, but sociologists sometimes choose to ignore this.
TIB they say it’s their job to just conduct objective research + to discover the facts. It is for the public to decide
what use to make of their findings.
- But, Weber reject this view = says they should take moral responsibility for their findings. E.g Einstein’s theories
helped to make the atomic bomb possible, yet he spoke against nuclear weapons.
TST Weber sees values as relevant to the sociologist, in deciding what to research, interpreting the data + deciding
1
