The question is whether value judgements unavoidably made in the course of research should not stop sociologists from trying to be objective and also can sociology be value free. Value free is where there is an absence of moral or political values entering the research process. Sociologist views on this differ. Examples of those who agree are Max Weber. Those who disagree and think it is impossible to be value free in sociology are Gouldner.
Max Weber argued that sociologist's values should be kept out of their research, and they should not make value judgements – judgements about right or wrong.
Max Weber recognised that values would influence the choice of topics to study. He argued that the sociologist had to have some way of choosing from the almost infinite numbers of possible areas of social life that could be studied. Weber believed that ‘value relevance’ would influence the choice. Researchers would choose to research topics that they thought were important and more significantly which they thought was centre of importance to society.
Value relevance for Weber governs the selection of facts in the social sciences by clarifying the inherent in a situation or phenomenon under analysis.
Therefore Weber believes that it is possible to be objective and completely value free.
Gouldner however argues in his essay ‘The myth of value-free sociology’ (1964) which was a controversial interpretation of \Max Weber's work that Weber did not believe sociology was capable of simple objectivity through his name was erroneously used to support such a proposition.
Gouldner believes that in practice all sociologists tend to commit themselves to a particular set of domain assumptions and these direct the way research is conducted and conclusions are met. Without some starting point research cannot proceed and sociological knowledge can not be created. Domain assumptions about human behaviour will determine whether qualitative or quantitative methods are used.
Gouldner regards Weber's views about value judgements being kept out of research as dishonest. Since sociologists must have values they should be open about them so that others can decide for themselves to what degree values have influenced the research.
Gouldner says: ‘if sociologists ought not to express their personal values in the academic setting, how than are students to be safeguarded against the unwitting influence of these values which shape the sociologists selection of problems, his preference’s for certain hypotheses or conceptual schemes, and his neglect of others. For these are unavoidable and in this sense there is and can be no value-free sociology. The only choice is between an expression of one’s values, as open and honest as it can be and a vain ritual of moral neutrality which because it invites men to ignore the vulnerability of reason to bias, leaves it at the mercy of irrationality’.
Therefore Gouldner believes there can be not value-free sociology.
In conclusion, there is no such thing as a value-free sociology, although Weber argues that it is possible not to use value judgements when conducting research this hard to prove because somewhere in the research there is going to be value-judgements. This can occur in the way method was conducted, the way in which the results were collected and analysed or the way in which the conclusions were drawn.
‘If sociologists ought not to express their personal values in the academic setting, how than are students to be safeguarded against the unwitting influence of these values which shape the sociologists selection of problems, his preference’s for certain hypotheses or conceptual schemes, and his neglect of others’.
Therefore it is highly problematic to conduct a value-free investigation because you have to be objective and this has to have no value judgements, this is highly impossible and therefore there is no such thing as a value-free sociology.