1. Sociology and Science - the debate…
Interpretivism
NO - Sociology CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be a science We cannot study people like we study the natural environment because we can’t predict human behaviour. We need to explore the internal meanings which direct our behaviour. Our behaviour is not a result of external factors. Sociologists explore internal meanings which are unobservable.
Ethically, we can’t study humans like we study objects, and we can’t study them in artificial environments such as labs.
Humans are not puppets - what makes them different is that they have free will / consciousness- so can choose how to behave. The phenomena which science studies cannot decide for itself how to respond (eg an apple), humans can.
Interactionists aim to obtain validity via the use of the unstructured approach. They argue that sociologists should use grounded theory to ensure that their research is open minded, and that by doing this we CAN establish cause and effect.
However, ethnomethodologists argue that we CAN’T establish cause and effect because society does not exist “out there”.
Positivism (Compte / Durkheim / Marx)
YES - Sociology CAN and SHOULD be seen as a science
Observable external factors (social facts) influence our behaviour and can be studied by busing the detached, objective, empirical and quantitative methods of science.
Popper (Science Philosopher)
YES - Sociology COULD be a science, but only when it produces testable, falsifiable hypotheses. This is difficult, because much of what sociologists study is unobservable, so not falsifiable. However, it IS possible e.g. Ford’s hypothesis about comprehensive schooling leading to social mixing of the classes was tested and falsified through her empirical research.
Realism - Bhaskar, Keats and Urry:
Realists claim that both Positivists and Interpretivists have misunderstood what science is. Realists illustrate that many great scientific discoveries have not been “observed” - just worked out by looking at their observable effects *.
YES sociology COULD be a science -
Sociology explores unobservable phenomena (eg meanings and motives) by observing their effects - but so does science (germs, virus’, black holes)
Sociology operates in an open system - but so does some science * (eg weather).
So… these two issues are not a barrier to Sociology being a science.
Positivism and Interpretivism can both be seen to use the scientific method.
Kuhn (Science Historian)
YES - Sociology COULD be a science, but a single paradigm would need to develop - this is very unlikely because there are different paradigms which compete with each other; similarly, there are also splits within paradigms.
Unlike Popper, Kuhn argues that scientists use verification (not falsification) - to try to prove their theories to be right. and only when challenges to a paradigm are overwhelming, does a scientific revolution take place and a paradigm is replaced. So, science is a social construction.
Postmodernism and social constructionists - science is influenced by social factors (eg funding, career aspirations etc). There is NO objective scientific method. Scientists are part of the society they explore, just like sociologists are.
Sociology can be considered “scientific” if it follows FIVE (VOSCOS) “rules”: 1 Value freedom *
Objectivity
Systematic methods of data collection
Careful analysis
Organised Scrutiny / continual testing and re-testing.
However, these “rules” are the focus of much debate - * especially regarding the issue of “values”.

2. Ideology - Marxist Dominant ideology – In this case the ruling class.
The ideas that people hold are formed by their position in society.
Ideology is the ideas of particular social groups reflecting their interests.
Dominant ideology – In this case the ruling class.
Mannheim – the ruling class deliberately obscure facts in order to conceal the inequalities of capitalist society, thus preserving existing patterns of inequality, the privileged position of the ruling class, and preventing any social change which may threaten them.
Althusser –The ideology is spread through ideological state apparatuses
Gramsci [hegemony] – the ruling class, through dominant ideology, maintains power by persuading the working class to adopt ruling class ideology as part of their own beliefs and values, thus consenting to the idea, and not being forced.

3. Feminist - Patriarchal ideology
Supports and tries to justify the power of men in a patriarchal society. Social ideas are mainly concerned with protecting and promoting the interests of men.
Radical feminists are most emphatic about the dominance of patriarchal ideology. Millet sees ideological factors as important in maintaining male dominance .
Males are socialised into having a dominant temperament , and the society’s culture sees it as natural for men to have dominant roles. Myth and religion- for example the story of Adam and Eve- reinforce patriarchal ideology .
However Millet believes non-ideological factors such as the use of violence , are also important in maintaining men’s dominance.

4. Feminist - Patriarchal ideology
Greer sees patriarchal culture as deeply entrenched in society. It is reflected in:
Sexuality- women are expected to meet men’s needs
Fashion and body image- women are expected to be obsessive about their physical appearance
Fear of men- women are afraid of men and are restricted in their movement by fear of attack by men.

5. Is sociology a science? LO
To critically consider different perspectives in whether Sociology can be accepted as a Science

6. Sources of Knowledge Wallace’s four sources.
Authoritarian – from position of parent, bishop or government or King etc
Mystical source – linked to a religious experience
Logical - rational – based on logic for example mathematics
Scientific method – Having a hypotheses and testing it rigorously

7. Scientific method
Philosophy and mathematics may be true knowledge but not necessarily linked to the real world. e.g. time, space and dimensions can have different properties.
Science, others can repeat the method, replicate the experiment and so Wallace claims, it gives the method a claim to superiority.

8. Positivists
Believe that science can explain the universe . They use hypo- deductive reasoning to test their beliefs.
This is when scientists have a theory and invite others to prove them wrong. It is based on the concept that nothing can be proven 100% true but theories can be proven false.
It is reasoned that if many fail to prove a theory wrong it has an increased likelihood of being correct/true but we will never be 100% sure.
According to positivists for theories to be scientific they must be testable/falsifiable. Positivists believe that a scientifically backed theory is far more valid than one that is not backed up with quality evidence. Positivists see the world as being full of concrete testable realities. Positivists use quantitative methods to support their theories.

9. Interpretivists
Are very skeptical with regard to the positivists ‘scientific’ claims.
They see the world as mainly a socially constructed place. By this they mean that reality as we understand it only exists because of agreed shared concepts knowledge itself is whatever we agree it to be. For example most people would recognize a chair as something useful to sit on, but if you took it to a tribe who had been isolated from the rest of the world and were a very aggressive group they may view it as a shield with spikes on it.
Context is therefore a hugely important aspect of knowledge itself, and so context is really important when we are trying to understand/interpret a situation. Interpretivists don’t think that scientific methodology is useful to the study of human interactions or sociology. They see it as not valid because it often removes the context or interferes in some way with the subject matter.
Interpretivists use qualitative research techniques such as ethnographic techniques for example observations and unstructured interviews.

10. Positivism
But even amongst positivists there is no agreement as to whether a theoretical subject such as sociology should be considered to be truly scientific.
First we must consider what constitutes a science?

11. Criteria of what science is: -
Have testable concepts
Accurate gathering of information to get reliable measurable data
Be able to make generalisations based on the research conducted to to establish common / general laws
Should be objective (unbiased)
Based on practical investigations – Empirical evidence

12. What is science?
Empirical
Theoretical
Objective
Testable
Cumulative

13. Empirical: Testable: Know through the senses – tested physically
Can be verified or refuted.
Falsification is the most important characteristic
Not collecting information and then formulating a theory (Induction used by Durkheim) but formulating a theory first and using data to test it. ( but theories can’t be constructed in a vacuum.)

14. Theoretical Cumulative Objective
The proposal of predictive theoretical patterns is something that can be tested and verified.
Can sociology can predict how groups of people will act / react?
Cumulative
Theory should be refined over time with increasing collection of evidence through research – Linear Progression
Is the evolution of theories and collection of data cumulative in sociology?
Objective
Theory and research needs to be value free and not influenced by subjectivity.

15. Is Society Testable? YES!!
Sociology cannot use laboratory experiments to test theories. It can not isolate the variables because it is testing inherently ‘open systems’
But this is true of cosmology, meteorology, vulcanology and animal behaviour which are also open systems. This does not stop theories being tested by observation.
Sociologists claim: Comparative methods allows testing –and verification- of a result.

16. Sir Isaac Newton & his Laws of Gravity
Keat & Urry (1982) Realism, Science & Sociology
Sociology & Science are very similar in that ,within both disciplines, researchers do not always have complete control over variables.
Much of Science is studied within an ‘Open System’ where the researcher does not have full control over variables e.g. Meteorology, Seismology. Predictions cannot always be made with 100% accuracy.
This is similar to Sociology as researchers cannot fully control the social world that they are studying. As such they too cannot make 100% accurate predictions.
Not all Science is based on observable phenomena e.g. Black Holes are literally the study of ‘nothingness’. This means that Interpretivists are wrong in suggesting that the study of ‘meanings’ & ‘thoughts’ and ‘motivations’ cannot be scientific. Just because something is not ‘observable’ it’s effects generally are and therefore can be studied scientifically.
Sir Isaac Newton & his Laws of Gravity
In conclusion, Realists argue that Science and Sociology are very similar, it’s just that some science can be studied in a ‘closed’, controlled system e.g. Chemistry.

17. Testable? Positivists in sociology
Sociological positivists feel that it is valid to use scientific methods despite the fact that the independent variable can rarely be fully isolated.
They think that the methodology itself is still useful and is the most reliable tool in searching for Knowledge.
Knowledge itself as far as they are concerned is a concrete reality that can be measured and tested.
They feel that there is such a thing as a social fact.

18. Positivism (Sociology is a Science):
It was Auguste Comte who coined the term ‘Sociology’ and laid the foundations for the Sociology that is studied today. During the ‘Enlightenment Era’ he believed that ‘Philosophising is not enough, we must seek out cause & effect’ – Hard Facts & Measurable Patterns of Society.
Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857)
What do you know about the ‘Enlightenment Era’?
This trail of thought led to the development of the ‘Modernist’ / ‘Positivist’ view of society which gave us ‘Structural Theories’ of Society such as Functionalism & Marxism
What do you know about ‘Structural Theories’ of Society?
The main feature within Positivism is that Society (Reality) exists outside & independently of Individuals:
> Nature is made up of observable, objective, physical facts such as rocks, plants, cells, atoms, which exist regardless of individuals .
> Society is also an objective fact/ reality that exists regardless of Individuals. It is made up of observable, measurable ‘things’ just like the natural environment.

19. Durkheim describes this Positivist thinking well when he says that Society is made up of ‘Social Facts’ & it is the job of the Social Scientist to discover real, measurable laws & patterns of society & behaviour.
Social Class is a good example of a ‘Social Fact’ that governs society (just like gravity governs nature). It is observable, measurable & has very real causal effects on Society & Individuals.
Emile Durkheim (1858– 1917)
Positivists argue that in order to explain the Social World, Sociologists, just like Scientists, must apply Induction (accumulating Information) in order to apply Deductive Logic to their studies.
Deduction
Induction (Accumulating Information)
then
X + Y = Z (Patterns to be deduced)
Allows for
MACRO
Micro
Individuals (and their social world) are governed by objective, external social facts/ reality – they are thus Passive.
When patterns are found between social facts, theories can be formulated that predict future behaviour i.e. we then have a ‘General Law’ of society. This theory is then open to verification or refutation.

20. Mayhew & Rowntree famously collected Government Statistics on Income/Drugs/Education/ Poverty/ Crime etc. in late 18th/ early 19th century. These act as a good example of the Positivist mind-set in action i.e. looking for casual relationships between social facts in order to understand society.
Emile Durkheim (1858– 1917)
‘Le Suicide’ (1897):
Durkheim applied this Positivist thinking to his study of Suicide. Using the Comparative Method he looked for causal relationships between the statistics to see what factors (Social Facts) lead to Suicide (Another Social Fact).
Finding higher rates of Suicide amongst Protestants compared to Catholics (across different countries), Durkheim concluded that Suicide on this scale & consistency could not be the impact of individual motives.
Instead he argued that it was caused by external social facts acting on the individual (i.e. the individual remained passive and was effectively ‘forced’ to commit suicide due to external influences).
Durkheim argued that it was the levels of integration into & regulation by society that caused suicide. The Catholic religion integrates & regulates individuals better than Protestantism.

21. Is Society Testable? – NO!!
Says that for a subject to be scientific it must be testable using hypo deductive reasoning
( i.e. it must have testable concepts that using scientific methodology could be proven wrong)
You must therefore be able to isolate an independent variable and establish causal links, which sociology can not do

22. Criticisms of Sociology as a Science:
Popper (1959): Science is Unique: Falsification
Popper argues that Science is unique as, in their quest to find ‘truths’, scientists do not try and prove themselves right, they actually try to Falsify their work first.
By trying to prove a theory wrong scientists remain objective in their endeavours & thus do not allow personal bias to infiltrate their research (unlike many sociologists).
e.g. Feminism is very Value-Laden by definition.
e.g. Marxism predicts a revolution but this cannot be falsified. If there is a revolution Marx is right, if there isn’t Marx is still right.
Sociology therefore cannot be a science until it removes it’s value-bias from it’s theories – at which point much of sociology would not exist.
Popper still values Sociology in that it helps to formulate new ideas and theories to explore. He suggests that Sociology has more un-testable theories than science simply because it hasn’t been around as a discipline as long.

23. Kuhn (1970) Science is Unique as it Shares Universal Truths
Sciences are based on a set of assumptions called paradigms. The paradigm provides scientists with a basic framework from which to work from i.e. what methods to use, what facts to follow etc. The paradigm is essentially a set of norms – it is a culture that unites its followers.
Sociology is different to Science as different Sociological Theories disagree on fundamental issues e.g. the nature of society –Structure vs. Action , Positivism vs. Interpretivism , Modern vs. Post-Modern etc.
Sociology can never be a Science as it is founded on competing ideas & theories.
Kuhn likens Science to a jigsaw, the overall picture is there and agreed on, and it is the job of scientists to put the pieces together as they come across them.
‘Everything is known but the detail. The challenge is not to uncover the unknown, but to obtain the known.’
On these grounds Kuhn argues that Science is unique, he also objects to Positivists wanting to be Scientists as he claims that Science isn’t all that Scientific (and therefore prestigious) in the first place…..

24. Testable? Interactionists in sociology
Do not agree that there is such a thing as a social fact in the same sense that positivists view it
They do not think knowledge itself is concrete or testable, just a shared and agreed upon reality
Consequently it is fairly immaterial whether sociology meets the criteria of science
They question the validity of science and feel that the experimental process itself often contaminates what it is meant to be learning about

25. Inductive Logic Interpretivism: MICRO Macro
Interpretivists disagree with Positivists by suggesting that “Scientific Methodology” is completely unsuited to the study of human beings.
Interpretivists see the social world as a product of Individuals (rather than it being an external, independent reality) i.e. without people, there would be no social world. They are fundamentally connected – not separate.
The social world can only be understood by studying (interpreting) individual behaviour, actions, motives and meanings, rather than suggesting that they are shaped and controlled by an external reality.
Sociology is not a science because science only deals with laws of cause and effect NOT human meanings and motivations.
X + Y = Z
MICRO
Macro
Inductive Logic

26. Symbolic Interactionism
Society is built up by Interactions between people. It is the job of sociologist to Interpret what these Interactions Symbolise (Hence Symbolic Interactionism)
George Herbert Mead
( )
People behave (act) according to ‘Symbols’ which they give ‘Meaning’ to. These symbols are things like objects, words, expressions and gestures.
Meanings are ‘negotiated’ during interactions. Individuals develop meanings by imagining themselves in other people’s positions .
Individuals develop their identities by interpreting how others see them i.e. Individual behaviour and thought is not determined by any fixed, rigid social structure but by complex interactions.
The Traffic Light Scenario…… People are not controlled by external forces but by the meanings and interpretations of interactions.

27. Ethnomethodology
This refers to the use of Interpretivist methods and procedures.
Harold Garfinkel
(1917 – Present)
This approach assumes that society has no social structure (POST-MODERNITY)
Social Order is an illusion that individuals create in their minds – reality is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION.
Ethnomethodology is interested in discovering how individuals make sense of the social world & how they create a sense of order in their lives i.e. it assumes that there is no fixed, rigid, external, objective social structure.
Max Weber (1864 – 1920)
Max Weber used the concept of VERSTEHEN to demonstrate this ‘Social Action’ approach to the study of society. To understand the social world:
‘The researcher should see the world through the eyes of the individual actor’.

28. Douglas (1967) An Interpretivist Approach to Suicide (counter Durkheim)
Douglas argues that in order to understand suicide the researcher must uncover it’s individual meaning to the individuals involved rather than imposing a formulaic, objective ‘Positivist’ theory such as Durkheim’s ‘Integration/ Regulation’ Theory.
Instead of using Quantitative Statistics (Comparative Method) to study suicide the researcher should examine Qualitative information from individual case studies of suicide i.e. move away from the Positivist ‘One-Size-fits-all’ structural approach.
Suicide statistics are not objective facts but are Social Constructions which only tell us about the decisions of coroners to label certain deaths suicide rather than objective fact.

29. Is sociology a science? LO
To critically consider different perspectives in whether Sociology can be accepted as a Science

30. This is the view of Schutz.
Sociology can’t and SHOULDN’T be a science. The idea of Schutz, Billig and Bauman
Durkheim thought society was like a building with hidden structure that could be uncovered.
But if we sociologists are actors who continually construct society by the meanings we give to actions and explanations of behaviour, then the detached approach of the scientist is both inappropriate and impossible.
This is the view of Schutz.

31. Why strive to be ‘Scientific’ – It limits the Researcher…..
Billig (1998): Sociology limits itself by trying to be Scientific
If knowledge is to develop & grow then it is important to embrace many different ‘knowledge paradigms’ instead of trying to be purely scientific e.g. Science with Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, History etc….
Wright-Mills (1959): The Sociological Imagination
C. Wright-Mills advocated what he called ‘the Sociological Imagination’. In this view it is important to have a creative and open mind towards research and not limit oneself to only one source of knowledge.
Bauman (2000): Liquid Modernity
Bauman follows this trail of thought by suggesting that in the post-modern (or liquid modern) era, every knowledge system is worth investing in. Old, restrictive structure of the past have broken down knowledge has become free. We are no longer tied down to science.

32. Science and the modern world
The post modernist criticism:
By claiming a monopoly on explanation scientists have replaced priests as the sources of truth.
There are many questions that are not asked and cannot be answered by science.
What is life for? What is justice? Are we responsible for other people?
By posing as having an answer for everything science is cheapening life.

33. Post-Modernism & Scientific Sociology:
Post-Modernists such as Bauman & Baudrillard argue that science is simply a meta-narrative – a big story & as such it is no more valid than other belief systems.
The post-modern appraoch suggests there are as many ‘truths’ as there are ‘points of view’ & as such it is dangerous to allow Science to have a monopoly over the ‘truth’.
Far from having the answers, Science has created a Risk Society according to Beck. It has introduced nuclear weapons, global warming and other greed into society – why therefore would sociology want to be associated with it?
Feminism & Scientific Sociology:
Feminists such as Harding (1984) & Hart (1994) argue that Science is inadequate as it is ‘Malestream’ and as such holds little value to women.

34. Why does it matter if Sociology is a Science?
To ensure prestige so the subject can gain funding for teaching and research at Universities.
To give weight to its findings so that they have the authority by being backed by scientific method.
To give protection. Sociology has been threatened in different countries from the Prussian civil servants to Robert Mugabe and Margaret Thatcher as a source of subjective political criticism.

35. Summary Sociology wanted to be seen as a science for status.
Scientist have pointed to aspects of sociology and said that it can’t meet all the criteria
Positivists believe by research design with sampling and triangulation there can be social science
Science itself does not meet all the criteria of being scientific
Interactionists and others think the debate itself is stuck in an age of outdated notions that there is a fixed knowable world out their to be discovered
There are many means of discovery of which science is only one
It is the politicians that like the so called hard facts and they hold the purse strings