Positivists believe that sociology should take the experimental method used in the natural science as a model, as this allows the most systematic, controlled and objective way of testing a hypothesis. Using quantitative data also links with positivists beliefs that researchers should be detached and objective leading to data which does not change according to viewpoint, values or prejudice and that can be easily verified or falsified.
One distinct example of positivism and studying sociology as a science was Durkheim’s study of suicide. He believed that if he could show a highly individual act had social causes, that he could establish sociology as a separate and authentically scientific discipline.
Durkheim observed patterns of suicide rates from official statistics and concluded that the patterns could not be products of the motives of individuals. For example, he found that the rates of suicide for Protestants were higher than the rate for Catholics. According to Durkheim, the social factors responsible for determining the suicide rates were the levels of regulation and integration. Consequently Durkheim claimed to have discovered a real law, showing evidence against the view of ‘Sociology cannot and should not be viewed a science’.
On the other hand, Interpretivist sociologists do not believe that sociology should model itself on the natural sciences. Interpretivists argue that the subject matter of sociology is meaningful social action, and that it can only be understood by successfully interpreting the meanings and motives of those involved. Interpretivists argue there is a fundamental difference between the subject matter of the natural sciences and that of sociology.
G.H. Mead argued that human beings interpret the meaning of a stimulus and then choose how to respond rather than automatically responding. For Interpretivists, individuals are not puppets, manipulated by suppose external social facts, but independent people who construct their own social world.
Interpretivists then reject the logic and methods of science and argue that to discover the meanings people give to their actions we need to evaluate their viewpoint. This means subjectively becoming involved using what Weber coined as verstehen to understand meanings. Interpretivists therefore choose to use qualitative data when researching.
A significant example of Interpretivist rejecting sociology as a science was Douglas’ criticism of Durkheim’s study on suicide. He found that to understand suicide you had to uncover the meanings of those involved. He rejected Durkheim’s use of official statistics as they are not objective facts but social constructions. He believed it would be better to study the case studies of the suicides to discover the meanings and give a better idea of the real rate of suicide.
Karl Popper believed that you could never prove something right and experiments should try and prove a hypothesis wrong, he devised the term falsification. Popper said sociology involves too little testing and research so cannot be considered a science. He believed that much sociology is unscientific because it consists of theories that cannot be put to the test with the possibility that they might be falsified.
Thomas Kuhn whose ideas, like Poppers, also have important implications for sociology. His central idea is the paradigm, which is shared by members of a given scientific community and defines what their science is. It provides a basic framework for assumptions, methods and techniques. It is a set of norms because it tells scientists how they ought to think and behave. In Kuhn’s view, a science cannot exist without a shared paradigm. Until there is general consensus on a single paradigm, there will only be rivals on thoughts, not a science.
Currently sociology is pre-paradigmatic and therefore pre-scientific. There is no agreement on the fundamentals of what to study or how to study it. Kuhn says that sociology could only become a science if basic disagreements were resolves.
In conclusion sociologists were divided as to whether sociology can be a science. This division stems largely from disagreements about the nature of sociology and its subject matter.
by
madeleine29 (student)
