Sociology and Science

Positivism

‘Founding fathers’ of sociology in the 19^th Century very impressed by success of science in explaining natural world
Many of these sociologists, like Comte (1798-1857) who coined term ‘sociology’ call themselves ‘positivists’
These believe favourable to apply logic + methods of natural sciences to study of society = provide true, objective knowledge
Key feature of positivist approach is belief that reality exists outside and independently of the human mind:
NATURE is made of objective, observable, physical facts that are external to our minds + exist whether we like it or not
SOCIETY is an objective factual reality – a real “thing” made up of social facts that exist “out there”, independently of individuals, just like physical world

Patterns, laws and Inductive Reasoning

Positivists: reality isn’t random or chaotic but patterned, observe these factual patterns through science
Believe Durkheim’s “real laws are discoverable”; sociologists can discover laws that determine how society works
Method used = induction involves accumulating data about the world through careful observation and measurement. As knowledge grows, patterns appear

Verificationism

Verificationism, we can develop a theory that explains all our observations so far
More observations verify theory; form a general law
Patterns we observe, in nature or society, can all be explained the same way by finding facts that cause them
Positivists seek to discover causes of patterns they observe. Aim to produce general statements or scientific laws about how society works
Favour “macro” or structural explanations of social phenomena e.g. Functionalism and Marxism

Objective Quantitative Research

Positivists use quantitative data to uncover + measure patterns of behaviour; can produce mathematically precise statements about relationships between facts
Seek to discover laws of cause and effect to determine behaviour
Researchers should be detached and objective; shouldn’t allow themselves to influence how they conduct research or analyse findings
If not detached, researcher may “contaminate” study e.g. through influencing interviewees so findings reflect their opinions/values
Employ methods to allow for maximum objectivity and detachment e.g. questionnaires, stats and so on

Positivism and Suicide

Durkheim (1897) studied suicide to show sociology=science with own distinct subject matter
If he could prove a highly individual act had social causes, would establish sociology’s scientific discipline
Used official stats; observed patterns in the suicide rates e.g. Protestants higher than Catholics
Concluded these patterns couldn’t be product of individual motives but SOCIAL FACTS!
He decided, social facts that determined suicide rates were levels of integration and regulation
Claimed to have discovered “real law” – sociology has own unique subject matter + these can be explained scientifically

Interpretivism

Argue subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action
Need to interpret meanings + motives
Unobservable internal meanings
Sociology isn’t a science! Interpretivists reject natural science methods
Fundamental difference between the two:
NATURAL SCIENCE: studies matter, has no consciousness. Behaviour explained as a straight forward reaction to external stimuli
SOCIOLGY: studies people, who do have a consciousness. People make sense of and construct their world by attaching meanings to it. Actions only understood in terms of meanings (internal stimuli)
G.H. Mead argued, rather than responding automatically to external stimuli, humans interpret meaning of stimulus and then choose how to respond
Interpretivists: humans autonomous (independent) beings, not puppets manipulated by social facts

Verstehen and Qualitative Research

To discover the meanings people give to their actions, need to see the world through their eyes
Abandon detachment + objectivity, put ourselves in place of the individual using Weber’s verstehen
Use qualitative methods + data such as participant observation
Produce richer, more personal data = high validity

Types of Interpretivism

Interactionists

We can have casual explanations. Reject positivist view of having definitive hypothesis before research. Glaser and Strauss argue this risks researcher bias rather than taking actors viewpoint. Prefer “bottom-up” approach; ideas emerge gradually from observations we make during research. Can produce testable hypothesis after.

Phenomenologists and Ethnomethodologists

E.g. Garfinkel, reject possibility of casual explanations. Take anti-structuralist view, society isn’t a real thing “out there” determining our actions. Social reality simply shared meanings/knowledge of members. So society not an external force; exists only in people’s consciousness. So, sociology can only consist of interpretive procedures

Interpretivism and Suicide

Jack Douglas (1967) – rejects positivist idea of external social facts determining behaviour. We have free will + choose how to act on a basis of meaning. To understand suicide, must uncover meanings for those involved. Douglas also rejects Durkheim’s use of quantitative data; not objective facts, but social constructs resulting from labels. Douglas proposes use qualitative data to reveal actor’s meanings
Atkinson (1978) – agrees with Douglas that external social facts don’t determine behaviour. But, unlike D, he argues we can’t ever know “real rate” of suicide as we can’t ever know for sure what meanings the deceased held

Postmodernists, Feminism and Scientific Sociology

PM’s argue against scientific sociology; natural science = meta-narrative, one “big story”
Scientific approach dangerous as it claims monopoly of the truth, excluding other perspectives
Poststructuralist feminists have similar view, argue quest for a single, scientific feminist theory is a form of domination. Excludes many female groups.
Science = undesirable model for sociology. Hasn’t always led to progress like positivists suggest e.g. emergence of “risk society” with global warming + nuclear weapons (scientifically created dangers) undermines idea that science brings benefits to humans on a daily basis

What is Science?

Interpretivists reject positivist view of scientific sociology, but tend to agree with their description of natural sciences
But a number of sociologists, philosophers and historians have portrayed different ideas of science

Karl Popper: How Science Grows

Influential philosopher
Notes many systems of thought claim to have true knowledge about things e.g. religion, political ideologies and so on
Asks two questions:
What is it that distinguishes scientific knowledge from other forms of knowledge?
Why has scientific knowledge been able to grow so spectacularly in just a few centuries?

The Fallacy of Induction

Popper differs from positivists: doesn’t agree distinctive features of science lie in inductive reasoning + verification
Main reason to reject V = “the fallacy (error) of induction”
Induction = process of moving from observation of particular instances of something to arrive at a statement/law
Uses example of swans to illustrate this: “all swans” white – we can’t prove this generalisation; single black swan will destroy the theory

Falsificationism

Popper: what makes science unique is very opposite of verificationism: FALSIFICATIONISM
Scientific methods able to be proven wrong
For Popper, good theories have two features:
It’s falsifiable but when tested, stands up to all attempts to disprove it
It’s bold – it claims to explain a lot. Makes big generalisations that predict large number of cases/events. It’s at greater risk of being falsified then more timid theories

Truth

Popper: “all knowledge is provisional, temporary, capable of refutation at any moment” – there can never be absolute proof that any knowledge is true

Criticism and the Open Society

In Popper’s view, science is a public activity (to be criticised) he argues this is why it grows so rapidly
Science thrives in “open” or liberal societies; ones that believe in free expression + the right to challenge accepted ideas
“Closed” societies dominated by an official belief system that claims to have an absolute truth

Implications for Sociology

Popper believes much sociology is unscientific because it consists of theories that can’t be put to the test with the possibility that it might be falsified
However, he believes sociology can be scientific because it’s capable of producing hypotheses that can be falsified
Although P rejects Marxism as unscientific because it’s unreliable, he doesn’t believe that untestable ideas are worthless
Such ideas might be useful as they could become testable later + we can examine them for clarity + logic consistency

Thomas Kuhn: Scientific Paradigm

The Paradigm

General idea of the paradigm: def; shared by members of a given scientific community + defines what their science is
Basic framework of assumptions, principles, methods + techniques within which members of that community work
The paradigm is thus a set of norms, or a kind of culture, because it tells scientists how they ought to think + behave
In Kuhn’s view, a science can’t exist without a shared paradigm. Until there’s a general consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rival schools of thought, not a science as such

Normal Science

Most of the time, paradigm goes unquestioned + scientists do NORMAL SCIENCE; scientists engage in puzzle solving/our job is simply to figure out how to put the pieces together to get the right results
Greatest advantage of the paradigm is it allows scientists to agree on the basics of their subject + get on with productive “puzzle-solving” work
Contrasts massively with Popper. Watkins (1970) Popper sees falsification as the unique feature of science. Kuhn says it’s puzzle solving within a paradigm that makes science appeal

Scientific Revolutions

But not all puzzle solving successful. Occasionally, scientists obtain finding contrary to those the paradigm led them to expect. As anomalies grow, confidence in paradigm decreases. Results in arguments about basic assumptions
Science enters period of crisis. Previously taken-for-granted foundations at risk
Scientists begin to develop rival paradigms = scientific revolution
For Kuhn, rival paradigms are incommensurable – two competing paradigms can’t be judged or measured by the same set of standards to decide which is “best”
Eventually, one paradigm wins out + becomes accepted by scientific community, allowing normal science to resume, but with new basic assumptions
However, process not rational. K compares it to religious conversions. New paradigm first gains support from new scientists who have less to lose unlike senior colleagues whose reputations were built on old paradigm
K’s view of scientific community contrasts with Popper’s
POPPER = open, critical + rational, constantly seeking to falsify things
KUHN = not formally characterised by openness, originality or critical spirit. Scientists are conformists who unquestioningly accept key ideas of paradigm as basis for making progress

Implications for Sociology

Pre-paradigmatic = pre-scientific
Sociology can only become a science if such basic disagreements (crisis) were resolved
Postmodernists might argue that a paradigm would also not be desirable in sociology. Sounds suspiciously like a meta-narrative – a dominant + dominating view of what reality’s like

Realism, Science and Sociology

Keat + Urry (1982) stress similarities between sociology + types of natural science in terms of degree of control the researcher has over variables being studied; distinguish between open/closed systems:
CLOSED SYSTEMS – those where researcher can control + measure relevant variables + can make precise predictions of the sort Popper advocates. Methods include lab experiments…
OPEN SYSTEMS – those where researcher can’t control + measure relevant variables, so can’t make predictions
Realists argue sociologists study open systems where the processes are too complex to make exact predictions

Underlying Structures

Realists reject positivist view that science only concerned with observable phenomena
Keat + Urry argue science often assumes existence of unobservable structures
Also means interpretivists wrong in assuming sociology can’t be scientific
If realists correct + science can study unobservable things, then no barrier to studying meanings scientifically
For realists, both natural + social science attempt to explain the causes of events in terms of underlying structures + processes, can see they exist by observing effects
In this view, most of sociology scientific
Unlike interpretivists, realists see little difference between natural science + sociology, except some natural scientists are able to study closed systems under lab conditions

Quick-Check Questions

“Social facts”, for Durkheim, refers to social, external aspects that are greater than the individual and influence their overall behaviour
Positivists favour structural explanations of behaviour because they believe large-scale social structures are the external cause of an individuals behaviour
For interpretivists, the subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action
Verstehen means putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. This makes it easier for researchers to understand subjective meanings behind the individual’s behaviour
Verificationism refers to obtaining evidence to prove someone’s theory is true, whereas Falsificationism means you attempt to prove someone’s theory isn’t true; therefore, falsifying it
A paradigm is basic outline of things like assumptions and methods used shared by the members within a scientific community
When Kuhn talks about normal science and scientists engaging in puzzle-solving he is talking about the paradigm which outlines questions and answers and how scientists reach them
Open systems are where researchers can’t control their variables and in closed systems the researchers can control and measure their variables