The second factor is the researchers assumptions about society. According to Alvin Gouldner, an approach that a researcher is going to adopt involves making domain assumption. These are the basic assumptions that sociologists make about the nature of social life and human behaviour. Sociologists tend to commit themselves to a particular set of domain assumptions, and these direct the way that research is conducted and conclusions are reached.
The third factor is the research methods that are used. All researchers have to be selective, some questions have to be chosen and others excluded. The choice will be influenced by the theories and hypotheses to which a particular researcher attaches credibility. For example, Goldthorpe and Lockwood ‘affluent workers’ was guided by the desire to disprove a particular hypothesis and this influenced the range of questions included in the questionnaires.
The fourth and final factor is how the data are interpreted. Once the data has been collected researchers need to interpret the results, and very often the results do not speak for themselves. E.g. Goldthorpe and Lockwood ‘affluent workers’ – data was interpreted in different ways by different sociologists. The Proletarianisation thesis has guided much of Marxist and non-Marxist research. They have interpreted the data in different ways.
Interpretivist sociologists also agree with anti-positivists such as contemporary sociologists, in that many say that sociologists simply impose their own views of reality on the social world.
However, Positivists disagree with the views of anti-positivists. Positivists advocate the use of scientific methods. They favour quantitative data (data presented in numerical form) and take a macro (large) approach and so study large groups of people at a time. They believe that their scientific approach is objective (unbiased).
Functionalists such as Comte and Durkheim use the methodology of positivists. They argue that objectivity is obtainable using scientific methodology. However, they have been accused of holding politically conservative views for assuming that existing social institutions serve a useful purpose.
Another perspective, Marxism, also believe that sociology is objective and scientific. However, Marx carried out no research and so had no empirical evidence to back up his claims. He has been criticised in that few would claim that his sociology was free from his political and moral beliefs.
Weber, a Symbolic Interactionist, recognised that values would influence the choice of topics for study. Researchers would choose to research topics that had relevance to society at the time. This approach appears more value free than that of Functionalists and Marxists, but there is some doubt that his personal values influenced his research. His writings on Bureaucracy are strongly influenced by his fear that bureaucratic organisations would stifle human freedom.
Most agree that it is impossible for sociology to be value free. Recently, sociological views have changed, and the questions now really is ‘should Sociology be value free?’
Howard Becker, an anti-positivist, thinks that this should be the case. He argues that it is impossible to conduct research ‘uncontaminated by personal and political sympathies’. Becker argues that not only the research process but also the theories which lies behind it (in his case interactionism) are influenced with value judgements. He supports taking the side of the underdog.
Alvin Gouldner also believes that value-free sociology is impossible because values underlie all theories. He argues that since sociologists’ values cannot be separated from sociological research, they should be honest about their values so that others can judge the extent to which their values have influenced their research.
Feminists have also identified some solutions to the problem of value freedom and objectivity. Ray Pawson distinguished between the weak thesis and the strong thesis. The weak thesis states that research methods are shot through with sexism. Eicler identifies some of the major areas of sexism. These are Androcentricity, Overgeneralisations and research methods. Androcentricity means that the world is viewed from a traditionally male perspective. By overgeneralisations she means that studies represent their findings as though they apply to both sexes. In reality, the researcher has only carried out research on men; this therefore cannot be objective and value free. She also said that research methods infuse the research process and so make it biased. The weak thesis says that the only way that sociology can be value free is if the sexism is taken out.
Founder of the strong thesis, Maria Miles, argues that a Feminist alternative is required in sociology. She says that Feminist methodology must have the following features; conscious partiality, where female researchers positively identify with women they study. View from below, reflects women’s experience and empowers women. The third feature is action research; this is where the researcher should actively participate in women’s struggle for liberation. Another feature is changing the status quo, women should challenge and change patriarchy so its nature is revealed. She also talked about raising consciousness, women should be aware of oppression and give women means to gain insight and change their situation. The sixth feature is allowing women to reclaim their history from its appropriation by men. The final feature is collectivising experience, here, women must join together and cooperate in their struggle for liberation. However, even if these problems are solved, the strong thesis still advocates the exact opposite of value freedom and thinks that it can never exist.
Some Feminists think that you can only experience something if you’ve been through it yourself. Feminists criticise other researchers for imposing their own values and beliefs on to their research. This makes the research subjective (biased) therefore it cannot be value free.
In summary, anti-positivists such as Weber and Interpretivists believe that sociological research can be influenced by the researchers choice of topic, the researchers assumptions about society, the research methods that are used and how the data are interpreted. They believe that values influence the whole research process and this is highly subjective and so cannot be value free. Positivists believe that sociology can be value free due to the scientific approach that they advocate.
In conclusion, some sociologists have tried to rectify the problem of value freedom within sociological research and have offered a solution with the formulation of a new question ‘should sociology be value free?’ However, Post modernists would criticise these people, as they believe that there is no such thing as validity (truth) so, in their view, value freedom cannot exist at all.
