However, the positivists like the idea of a scientific approach such as comparing data from such thins as official statistics in order to see patterns, trends and correlations and therefore the positivists argue that the results are objective and reliable because the research can easily be repeated. This is illustrated clearly in Durkheim’s study of suicide where he compared the suicide rates across different European countries and across time. This large-scale quantitative data enabled Durkheim to see that there were consistently different rates in different countries and he was able to come up with social reasons for these suicide rates. Positivists do see sociology as a science and do like to try and follow objective repeatable methods and favour large-scale approaches where comparisons can be made. Other methods favoured by positivists which they see in high in reliability are questionnaires and structured interviews because there research is large scale and they often use sampling methods such as stratified random they feel that there research is representative of the wider society and that you can generalise from it in the same way that scientists would generalise from their experiments. However, Sociologists do use some psychology experiments to back up the sociologist’s research such as the ‘bobo doll’ study.
However, Interpretivists reject the idea that sociology can have a scientific approach because they argue that the use of qualitative data to interpret social action, with an emphasis on the meanings and motives of actors is more important than finding patterns, trends and correlations because it requires an understanding of people’s unobservable subjective states, which cannot be reduced to statistical data. However, Griffin did conduct an experiment where he changed his skin colour to see how people responded to him. Because Interpretivists think that humans are not like plants or animals because they are self-reflexive and have consciousness and attach meanings to behaviour they feel that the best way to research social interaction is through participant observation. Participant observation and unstructured interviews allows the researcher to see the world from the point of view of the people concerned. As Whyte said ‘as I sat and listened I learnt the answers to questions I never would of asked.’ This shows that the positivist approach puts the researchers boundaries around the research in a way that the Interpretivists try not to do. In addition there methods reveal more about actual behaviour than any positivist approach could, for example, Ditton’s research into bread sales men found that they all stole as a matter of course. This would never of been revealed by questionnaires or structured interviews.
Further Interpretivists have rejected Durkheim’s method in studying suicide as they say that whether or not a death is classified as a suicide is a social construct made by the coroner. It is not lack of social integration that they say that makes somebody commit suicide but it is lack of social integration that enables the coroner to make that decision.
One type of experiment that sociologist do do are field experiments. Field experiments involve intervening in the social world in such a way that hypotheses can be tested by isolating particular variables. For example Rosenthal and Jacobson tested the hypothesis that self-fulfilling prophecies could affect educational attainment by manipulating the independent variables of the pupils’ IQ scores known to teachers. In another experiment, Sisson observed the reactions of members of the public when they were asked for directions by an actor. The location of the experiment was held constant, but the appearance of the actor changed from being dressed as a businessman to being dressed as a labourer. Sisson found that public were more helpful when the actor was dressed as a businessman rather than as a labourer.
Although field experiments overcome the problem of experiments taking place in an unnatural setting, these experiments do have other problems associated with them. First, it is not possible to control variables as closely as it is in the laboratory. Thus in Sissons’s experiment, for example, it was not possible to carry out the two experiments at the same time and the same place, and, since they took place at different times, factors such as the weather and the time of day might have affected the results. Also, in some field experiments, the fact that an experiment is taking place can affect the results. This is often known as the Hawthorne effect. For example Mayo found in his study that variables such as room temperature, the strength of the lighting and the length of breaks were varied, but irrespective of whether working conditions were improved or made worse, productivity usually increase. It appeared that the workers were responding to the knowledge that an experiment was taking place rather than to the variables being manipulated. To avoid the Hawthorne Effect, it is necessary that the subjects of experimental research are unaware that the experiment is taking place. (However, this does raise further problems of informed consent).
In conclusion, experimental methods are of little use to sociologists because they are too small scale, the Hawthorne effect occurs and sociologists like to see people in their natural environment.
by
gabes147 (student)
