Interpretivists use a range of research methods. They often use unstructured interviews this is because this type of interview helps them to discover the meanings, attitudes, values and beliefs of the people they are studying giving them rich qualitative data for example Oakley’s research on gender and the domestic division of labour. However unstructured interviews are more prone to interviewer bias and social desirability effects, both of which reduce validity. Another method favoured by interpretivists is participant observation this is because it gives them the opportunity to see the world from the point of view of those being observed however positivists claim that participant observation is not useful because it produces hardly any quantifiable data, and the number if people observed is too small to provide a representative sample and therefore generalisations can not be made.
Positivists favour certain research methods e.g. laboratory experiments because they usually produce quantifiable results but people are likely to define laboratories as artificial and as a result their actions may be very different to their behaviour in the real world. In the same way positivists also favour questionnaires particularly those with closed questions because the results are easily quantifiable, however it can be argued that questionnaires fail to give people the chance to talk about their behaviour as they see it.
Therefore it seems that interpretivist sociologists use research methods that produce qualitative data while positivist sociologists use research methods which produce quantifiable data.
However Pawson rejects the view of the two sociologies. He claims that there is a whole range of different views, assumptions and methodologies for example the views and assumptions of feminists, marxists, functionalists, interpretivists, positivist etc. and the range of methodologies that are used by all of these. He says this variety cannot be reduced to “two sociologies”.
Another criticism of the two sociologies view is that many sociologists use triangulation when carrying out their research. Methodological triangulation comes in two forms, ‘with-in’ and ‘between’. With-in triangulation uses a variety of techniques within the same method, for example using both open and closed questions in a questionnaire. The between triangulation involves using a number of research methods for example questionnaire, participant observation and unstructured interviews.
Methodological pluralism also contradicts the idea of ‘two sociologies’ because it aims to use a variety of methods to build a fuller picture of social life. Sociologists use both quantitative and qualitative methods in order to do this.
Therefore in light of Pawson’s views, triangulation and methodological pluralism it can be said that it is only true to a certain extent that structural sociologists use quantitative data while interpretative sociologists use qualitative data.
