Science and Values

Introduction

Science revolutionised all aspects of life

Science central to 18th century enlightenment project-believed natural sciences would produce true + objective knowledge to improve society + make progress

Science influenced Durkheim + Comte + Marx who believed sociology could be studied same way as natural sciences to eradicate social problems (e.g poverty + injustice)

Opposingly, interpretivists argue it isn’t possible or desirable for sociology to model itself on the natural sciences

Positivism-YES sociology should be a science

Durkheim + Comte are positivists

Objective Factual Reality-Is possible to apply logic and methods of natural sciences to study society-to gain true + objective knowledge

Knowledge helps us solve social problems + achieve progress (Enlightenment Project)

Positivism-Patterns, Laws and Inductive Reasoning

Reality is not chaotic + random (postmodern) as can observe patterns in behaviour as empirical facts (e.g water boils as 100 degrees Celsius)

Can discover the laws of how society works

Do this through ‘Inductive reasoning‘-accumulate data about world through observation and measurement to verify theory (e.g white and black swans)

Patterns explained by finding facts that cause them

E.g Material Deprivation causes educational failure (policies to reduce involve FSM, Pupil Premium, educational action zones)

Objective Quantitative Research

Use quantitative data to understand cause and effect relationships

Favour these methods:

Official Stats

Comparative Experiment

Questionaires

Structured Interviews

Lab and Field Experiments

Positivism + Suicide (Durkheim)

Aim to prove even highly individual acts have social causes to prove sociology is a genuine scientific discipline

Uses official stats and found rate of suicide higher in protestant than Catholic communities

Concluded it was due to social facts-forces acting on people in society to determine behaviour

Social Facts-the level of integration and regulation. Catholics more successful at integrating it’s members.

Therefore claimed to have discovered ‘real law’

Interpretivism-NO sociology shouldn’t be a science

Not desirable or possible to treat sociology like natural sciences

Positivism is inadequate at studying human people

The Subject Matter of Sociology (Interpretivism)

Subject matter is meaningful social action

Only understand by successfully interpreting the motives + meanings of actors involved

Science deals with cause+effect but sociology deals with human beings

Reject quantitative methods:

Natural science-matter without consciousness

Sociology-people with consciousness, construct world by attaching meaning to it

Mead-choose how to respond to stimuli by interpreting meaning, not automatic response

(E.g though process of coming up to lights about to change to red)

Interpretivism-Qualitative Research + Verstehen + Valid

Must see world from the actors point of view so reject quantitative methods

Preferred Methods:

Documents, Observations, Unstructured interviews + group interviews, field experiments

Types of Interpretivism

Interactionists: (Becker-ideal pupil) (Jacobson + Rosenthal-Self Fulfilling Prophecy)

We can have causal explanations but reject that you must have a hypothesis before research begins.

Risks imposing own view onto research, causing us to distort reality. Ideas emerge gradually from observations we make.

Phenomenologists + Ethnomethodologists:

Social reality is simply shared knowledge of its members, no possibility of cause + effect as people aren’t governed by external forces.

Don’t attempt to explain social event, rather focus on how social actors construct social events + meaning

E,g How coroners label death as a suicide

Interpretivism + Suicide

Douglas rejects idea that external social facts determine behaviour

People have free will-act based off meaning

To understand suicide, must uncover its meaning for people

Rejects Durkheim’s use of quantitative data from official stats

Are not objective but simply social constructions resulting from way coroners label certain deaths as suicides.

Douglas proposes use of qualitative data to reveal actors meanings

Interpretivism (Ethnomethodologists) (Atkinson)

We can never really know the true rate of suicide even with qualitative data as never know the true feelings the deceased held

Only thing we can really study is how the living makes sense of the dead. E.g coroners labelling deaths as a suicide

Feminist View of Scientific Sociology

-Could be possible but not desirable

-Science=male dominated and oppress females

-Quantitative Methods are also oppressive

-Science can’t capture experiences of women-so shouldn’t model itself after natural sciences

-Must understand how women feel-qualitative methods are preferred

Postmodernism View of Scientific Sociology

-Sociology not a science

-Science is a metanarrative-just one version of the truth so its account is not more valid than any others

-Not one objective truth-many diff truths-science is a form of domination

-Science cannot overcome diversity and choice

Late Modern View of Scientific Sociology (Individualisation Thesis)

-Giddens + Beck (Risk Society)

-Past problems were environmentally caused but problems now are human manufactured (e.g nuclear weaponry)

-Many risks in the pursuit of scientific knowledge-therefore not desirable

Can Sociology be a Science (Interpretivism + Positivism)

-Both define science as inductive reasoning or verficationism

Some have alternative views of what science is defined as

Sociology can’t be a Science (Popper)

-Main feature of science isn’t inductive reasoning + verificationism

Cannot prove a theory right simply be observing more of it

E.g -Statement all swans are white cannot be proven but it can be destroyed by observing a black swan

Science based on falsification principle (Can’t prove a theory right, you can only prove it wrong) E.g Flat Earth and Geocentric view of world

-Open Belief System:

Science is open belief system as open to scrutiny

Science thrives in open + liberal societies due to free expression

Closed societies dominated by official belief system which claims absolute truth-science may cause conflict

Sociology can’t be a Science (Popper) Implications

-Marxism predicts a revolution but hasn’t happened yet so prediction cannot be falsified

-Most sociology is unscientific as consists of theories that cannot be put to the test with possibility it may be falsified

-Can be scientific as capable of producing hypothesis that can in principle be falsified (E.g studies looking at the causes of educational achievement)

Can Sociology be a science? No (Kuhn)

Only 1 paradigm at a time

Science is governed by paradigms and dominant ways of thinking

Scientific Community define what science is, tell scientists what to think + what questions to ask + answers they should find (referred to as puzzle solving)

Science can’t exist without a shared paradigm

Rather than being open, science is a closed belief system

Scientific Revolutions:

Puzzle solving not always successful-some pieces of the jigsaw don’t always fit and can be anomalies in the paradigm

Scientists must reformulate the paradigm to account for mounting up of anomalies

Reaches ‘crisis point’ and rival paradigms formulate which leads to scientific revolutions

Rival Paradigms can’t be judged or measured by same set of standards-one paradigm will win and be accepted by scientific community

Can Sociology be a science? No (Kuhn) Implications

-Sociology is pre-paradigmatic + therefore pre-scientific

-Divided into diff schools of thought-no shared paradigms so no fundamental agreements on what to study and what methods to use

-Functionalists and Marxists disagree

-Sociology can only be seen as a science if basic disagreements resolved-possibility for this is open to doubt

The Founding Fathers of Sociology

Comte + Durkheim (Early positivists) argue job of science is to uncover truth about society (The Enlightenment Project)

Weber-Values are important when deciding what to research but we must remain value free whilst conducting research

1.Values guide research-Choose what to study based on what is regarded as important-values significant

E.g Feminists-value gender equality so leads them to study female oppression (Develop patriarchy concept to understand it)

2.Data Collection + Hypothesis Testing-Must be objective + unbiased when collecting facts

Keep values + prejudices out of the process

Must not ask leading questions or try to sway research in any way

3.Interpreting Data + Unconscious Bias-Values useful once data collected for interpretation

Place data into a theoretical framework influenced by values

Must be explicit about them to spot any unconscious bias

Allows us to draw conclusions from them

4.Citizenship-Shouldn’t hide from political + moral issues their work raises with excuse of objectivity

Sociologists are human

Must take human responsibility-E.g Einstein’s theories helped make the atomic bomb possible yet he spoke up against nuclear weapons

Value Freedom + Commitment

Modern Positivists-Own values are irrelevant

Now hiring themselves out to solve the problems of governments, businesses + military-job simply to uncover the truth and be free from values

Marxists, feminists + interactionists-argued for committed sociology where they would spell out their values + openly take sides

Gouldner-By 50’s sociologists became spiritless technicians. Now problem takers rather than problem makers. Hired by Gov’s + promised to solve their problems. Wouldn’t want to rock the boat and critique their paymasters

Taking Sides

Myrdal-should not only spell out their values but openly take sides

Like Gouldner-believes neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of research

Undesirable-Without values to guide research, sociologists merely sell services to highest bidder

Impossible-Either sociologist or paymasters values bound to be reflected in work

Becker-Values are always present. Positivists and functionalists tend to take sides of the powerful. Instead of favouring the overdog, should see from perspective of the underdog, the powerless (Criminals + Mental Patients)

An emphasis from interactionists-should emphasise with underdog + give them a voice. Reflected in type of research methods they use.

Favour qualitative methods due to validity and verstehen (Interpretivism)

Other Issues with values and objectivity

Funding and Careers-Most research funded by someone other than research

From Gov, businesses and voluntary orgs

Work likely embodies values of paymasters

Funding bodies may block publication of research that isn’t the findings they want

Researchers may censor themselves in order to further career

Perspectives + Methods-Is link between sociologists methods + their value stance (E.g Interpretivists value verstehen and validity so do unstructured interviews)

-Values influence topics chosen to research, concepts they develop + conclusions reached

-Diff perspectives embody diff values about how world should be/ is (Marxism vs Feminism)