Is sociology a science?

If we accept these definitions of science as logical and uniform then some sociology can be said to aspire to be scientific. The positivism pioneered by Comte and Durkheim, tried to follow scientific method as it was seen as a superior way of producing and testing knowledge. Durkheim in particular adhered to the comparative method as a substitute for experimentation, the favoured scientific method, as it provided a form of control and reliability.

Although positivists generally assume the scientific approach is the superior method they nevertheless encounter substantial difficulty in applying it to sociology. For example, actual involvement with the subject is unscientific as it effects their behaviour, yet is very difficult to avoid in sociology especially as the subjects are conscious beings. This is highlighted by the Hawthorne studies and the work by Rosenthal and Jacobson on the self fulfilling prophecy. It is argued though that this problem is unavoidable and is encountered by natural scientists too but is countered by the argument that in the case of sociology the researcher is actually part of the phenomena thus exacerbating the problem.

In natural science even if scientific knowledge is disproved and thus classified obsolete, the scientists still assume that the phenomena that was being studied follows a universal and invariable natural law. This is patently not the case in sociology as patterns of social behaviour are circumstance specific. In fact, sociological research itself may lead to a change in patterns in behaviour.

Even if the idealised conception of natural science was accepted by sociologists who were not positivist they would still fail to consider it as a suitable model for the study of social behaviour. Indeed ethnomethodologists have dismissed science as being no different from other forms of common sense, with the scientific observer relying on subjective experience and interpreting his observations within a particular social context.

The main argument interpretive sociologists use against the scientific approach lies in their different views on what the subject matter of sociology is defined as. They dismiss the existence of objective social facts and see social reality as socially constructed. Searle has argued that social scientists need explanations of 'intentionality and its effects' as opposed to social facts. He emphasises the purposive nature of human behaviour and the meaning we attach to it. Winch has suggested that sociologists should seek reasons for and not cause of behaviour. This criticism of positivism often uses Durkheim's study on suicide as an example for debate.

There is a mass of material that could be used to criticise the idealised conventional definition of science. Sociology due to disagreement over its status as a science can be roughly divided into those who treat it as a science with scientists and those who assume it is socially rather than objectively defined and take a more philosophical stance in the debate. The implications for the scientific nature of sociology depend on the particular study.

Ziman agrees with Popper to the extent that he claims that science must be tested and agreed knowledge. Like Merton he sees the scientific community as openly testing ideas. He describes science as 'public knowledge'. The consensus of rational opinion he sees developing from this process is similar to Kuhn's notion of a paradigm.

However Kuhn sees the scientist not as open-minded and rational but operating within limits which influence the questions asked the subject matter and the research method used. Paradigms, or models, are the generally accepted foundations upon which subsequent theory is built. This applies during a period of normal science. Evidence, which does not fit the model, is either distorted or ignored. When the evidence against the existing model is overwhelming then a scientific revolution occurs and a new model emerges.

The inference of this view in sociology is that sociology lacking the rational consensus described, is pre-paradigmic and therefore not a science. This is even though sociologists do work within academic communities and publish their work for criticism, which fulfils the specification of science of Merton and Ziman.

Kaplan has distinguished what scientists really do from the way in which their findings are presented in scientific papers. The presentation of research in conventional form suggests open minded and rigorous procedures and legitimises science in the public's mind. Bell and Newby have described a similar distinction between the way sociological research is actually done from the way it appears in formal applications.

The approving view of the open-minded scientist is also questioned by Sklair, who looks at the way 'big science' is dominated by government and business interests. This, he claims, influences choice of subject matter and interpretation of findings. Broad and Wade have shown how this can lead to cheating by scientists. For example American scientists are alleged to have falsely claimed simultaneous and independent identification of the HIV as the cause of AIDS with French scientists.

Sociologists, as shown by Bell and Newby, also conform to outside pressures. This could be illustrated by the bias towards the interests of the employer in industrial sociology. More social research in the UK is directly or indirectly government sponsored. Gouldner sees the commitment to science itself, by sociologists, as an evasion of their responsibilities, as it allows them to be used by government and business.

In conclusion an accurate answer to the question is sociology a science does not exist due to the varying perspectives on the subject matter and definition of science.