Objectivity and Values in Sociology

The classical sociologists and values

The Early Positivists

Early positivists, Comte (1978-1857) and Durkheim (1858-1917) creation of a better society wasn’t matter of subjective values or personal opinions about what is “best”
Share Enlightenment/Modernist view of sociology role
In their view, scientific sociology would reveal one correct society
Sociologists = crucial role
Comte; sociology = “queen of the sciences”, sociologists = latter-day priests of a new scientific religion of truth

Karl Marx

Positivist or no?
Saw himself as a scientist + his method of historical materialism could reveal line of development of human society
Evolution through series of different types of class-based society, leads to future classless communist society where exploitation, alienation + poverty wouldn’t occur + individual would be free to achieve true potential
Marx’s sociology, reveal truth of this development, especially the proletariat
Marx takes for granted value of ideal communist society + argues his scientific approach will show us how to reach it

Max Weber

Makes a sharp distinction between value judgements + facts + he argues that we can’t derive one from the other
E.g. research shows divorcees more likely to commit suicide, but doesn’t demonstrate truth of the value judgement that we should make divorce harder to obtain
However, despite making sharp distinction between facts + values, Weber still saw essential role for values in research
4 staged process
Values as a guide to research:
Social reality = “meaningless infinity” of facts
Select certain facts + study these
Select in terms of what we regard as important based on our own values (value relevance)
Values essential in enabling us to select which aspects of reality to study + develop concepts
Data collection and hypothesis testing
Must be objective + unbiased
E.g. no leading questions
Once facts are collected, we can test hypothesis; keep values out of process
Values in the interpretation of data
Facts need to be set in theoretical framework so we can understand significance + draw conclusions from them
Framework influenced by values, so must be explicit about them
Values and the sociologist as a citizen
Findings impact people’s lives but sociologists sometimes ignore uses to which their work is put; their job is to conduct objective research + discover facts
Weber rejects this view: sociologists human beings too, mustn’t dodge moral + political issues their work raises, must take responsibility
Weber sees values as relevant to sociologists when choosing what to research, in interpreting data + deciding the use to which the findings should be put

Value Freedom and Commitment

Modern Positivists

Unlike Durkheim and Comte, 20^th century positivists tend to argue their own values were irrelevant to their research; 2 reasons for this
The desire to be scientific
Sociologists should remain morally neutral; find truth, not judge it
Critics argue this is reflected through desires to make sociology respectable
The social position of sociology #
Gouldner (1975) argues by 1950’s, American sociologist in particular had become mere “spiritless technicians”. Earlier sociology was about critical discipline, often challenging accepted authority. By 1950’s sociologists no longer “problem makers” who defined their own research problems; instead, they’d become “problem takers” who are hired by businesses + organisations to solve their problems for them
G argues by leaving their own values, sociologists make “gentleman’s promise” that they wouldn’t rock the boat by criticising paymasters
As they’re hired, their own values = irrelevant

Committed sociology

Myrdal (1969) argues sociologists shouldn’t spell out their values, should openly “take sides”
Neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of research
Value free sociology (in G’s view):
Impossible: because sociologists own values, or those of paymasters, are reflected in their own research
Undesirable: without values to guide research, sociologist merely selling services to highest bidder

Whose side are we on??

Sociologists must inevitably take sides
By not choosing a side, sociologist is actually taking side of the more powerful
Interactionist, Becker (1970) asks this question. Values always present. In tradition positivists + functionalists take viewpoint of the powerful
Instead of taking this viewpoint, sociologists should adopt compassionate stance + take the side of the underdogs (less known about these groups) by acknowledging them we can reveal a previously hidden side of social reality!
Gouldner criticises Becker for taking romantic + sentimental approach to disadvantaged groups. Instead he accepts Marxist perspective. Should side with those who are “fighting back”

Funding and Careers

Most sociological research funded by someone other than sociologists themselves e.g. government departments, business etc.
Often place that pays will control direction research takes
So, research influenced by paymasters values
For G, all research influenced by values, sociologists or paymasters

Perspectives and Methods

Feminism sees society as based on gender inequality + promotes the rights of women
Functionalism sees society as harmonious + espouses conservative values that favour the status quo
Marxism sees society as conflict-ridden + strives for a classless society
These values + assumptions influence the topics they research, concepts they develop + conclusions they reach
There is a link between sociologists’ methods + value stance

Objectivity and Relativism

If all perspectives involve values, and findings are just a reflection of them, are they a true picture of society?
One idea of this is known as relativism. This argues that:
This argues that different groups, cultures + individuals have different views as to what is true
There’s no independent way of judging whether any view is truer than the other
Relativism must go further, it argues there’s no objective truth just truths plural

Relativism and Postmodernism

Postmodernists take a relative view, reject the idea that any one account of social world is superior to the other
No perspective has any special claim to be true. This also works for Postmodernism though, so relativism is self-defeating!

Quick-Check Questions

According to Weber, the stage of data gathering is where values must not be allowed to enter
True. Relativism does argue that everyone’s view of the world is equally valid
Gouldner’s main criticism of modern positive sociologists is that they took no moral responsibility for their work
Interactionists argue we should see things from the point of view of the underdog to balance information as things about this group are not well known
“Objectivity” means there is a lack of bias in research. Researcher’s don’t allow their values or assumptions affect their overall data
Many sociologists wish to be seen as scientific because science is highly respected and has a high status within society