Value Freedom & Value-Commitment: The argument over Value-Freedom/ Value-Driven Sociology is an ongoing debate with different sociologists approaching the argument from different angles….. Modern Positivists: Science is fact, not values (‘Is’ not ‘Ought’) Sociologists should reveal facts about people’s behaviour, not praise or condemn it. As such sociology is scientific & value-free. This gives sociology higher status, credibility, prestige & funding. O’Connell. Davidson & Layder (1994) suggest that personal bias & opinion are irrelevant & avoidable as long as the research follows the ‘Hypothetico-Deductive Model’ of scientific research. Gouldner (1975) says that this attitude undermines the whole point of sociology which used to be concerned with challenging the accepted authority & giving awareness to problems & being critical. Sociologists have become ‘problem takers’ rather than ‘problem makers’ by simply hiring themselves out to address other people’s/ organisations problems. Positivism & Value-Freedom thus distances & detaches sociologists from their work. (Weber agrees by saying sociologists should be morally bound to their work).

So, why is it impossible to be Value-Free in Research? In opposition to Positivism & Value-Freedom, some sociologists argue that it is impossible to Feminists i.e. Sociological Research will always be Value-Laden. So, why is it impossible to be Value-Free in Research? Historical Context of Research: Career Trajectories: Funding of Research: Personal Beliefs & Interests: Gouldner (1968) argues that the historical period (i.e. political atmosphere, social climate) will affect what research is carried out in to what areas. Research is ‘historically’ bound. Philo & Miller (2000) argue that research is ultimately dictated by whoever is funding it i.e. what is to be studied, why, how, when & who. Research is rarely carried out for it’s own sake. Funding agencies might also only want particular findings. Gouldner (1968) highlights how research might be influenced by the researchers personal agenda, ambition, career goals. As such the researcher might want to please the establishment & not upset ‘the norm’ (Kuhn – Paradigms of Knowledge) Feminists strongly argue that all research is Value-Laden by drawing attention to problems of sexism in research – See handout. Gouldner (1968) draws attention to the fact all researchers have their own interests, opinions, biases & preferences & as such could affect what is to be studied, how, why etc. E.g. Feminism.

So far then, we have considered Value-Free Sociology & Value-Laden Sociology. There is however, a ‘Third Way’ which is advocated by Gouldner (1968) & Myrdal (1969)……… Value-Committed Sociology: Myrdal (1969): Mrydal argues that it is not only impossible to be Value-Free in research, but that it is also ‘Undesirable’ to do so. He furthers this by arguing that sociologists should be Value-Committed – they should ‘take sides’ by embracing the values & interests of particular groups e.g. as in Feminism & Marxism, with being Value-Committed these sociologists would not be drawing attention to Gender or Class Inequality. By being Value-Free, Sociologists are simply ‘Researchers-for-Rent’. Examples of Value-Committed Sociology…. > Marxism (Values Communism & Class Inequality) > Feminism (Values Gender Inequality) > Interactionism (Values Individuals Meanings & Motivations) > Gouldner (1968) even argues that Functionalism is actually Value-Committed as it has an ‘Ideal Type’ of society at it’s centre. ………………

Becker (1970) ‘Whose Side Are We On Anyway?’: Becker agrees that Values are present in all research – even in positivism. Positivism always examine the view point of the most powerful groups in society. The groups who get to define deviance, crime, morality, poverty, class etc. Accordingly, Becker argues that it is now time to look at the ‘Underdogs’ rather than the ‘Overdogs’ e.g. criminals, mental patients, the W/C etc. Little is known about these groups & therefore a new dimension to social reality can be uncovered. E.g…. Goffman (1968): ‘The Career of the Mental Patient’ Instead of focusing on how powerful groups get to define & measure mental illness, Goffman examined the concept of mental illness through the eyes of a mental patient. By doing this the bias toward the doctor’s opinion is broken down & replaced with that of the patient i.e. Breaking Down existing presumptions & definitions that Positivists use to study society & being value-committed to the ‘little man’.

Final Word….. Relativism : If all sociological perspectives & ideas are full of Values then it is impossible to say what is true or what ‘reality’ is. Relativism addresses this by arguing the following…. > Different groups, cultures & individuals have different views as to what is true. Each viewpoint is distinctive (or relative) to the individual/ group. > There is no independent way of judging whether any view is truer than any other. > There is no single, over-riding truth – just ‘Pluralism of Truth’ – every truth is true for the individual – every truth is valid. This is a very Post-Modernist view to take of the world but, let’s finish this topic with the following point; If Post-Modernism claims there is no single truth or theory of how society works & why people do certain things then how can Post-Modernism claim Relativism to be true?