A Level Sociology



A Level Sociology Unit 3: Theory and Methods Topic 1Science and Values Part 1: Sociology and Science. Objectives:Know the difference between positivist and interpretivist views of whether sociology can be a science and be able to apply this to the issue of suicide Know a range of views on natural science and their implications for Sociology as an scienceBe able to evaluate the arguments for and against the view that Sociology can or should be a science Introduction: Science is a central feature in today’s society. Science and technology have revolutionised practically every aspect of life, from living standards to healthcare, communications and warfare. Science was central to the 18th century enlightenment project; these thinkers believed that natural sciences would produce true and objective knowledge of the world which could then be used to improve society and progress. Science made a big impression on modernist Sociologists such as Durkheim, Marx and Comte who believed that Sociology could be studied in the same way as the natural sciences in order to eradicate social problems such as poverty and injustice. However others such as Interpretivists have argued that it is not possible or desirable for Sociology to model itself on the natural sciences. Can (is it actually possible) and should (is it really desirable?) Sociology be a science? What is Science and what implications does this have for Sociology? 1619250621665What is Science? Record all the words you associate with Science!What is Science? Record all the words you associate with Science!Positivism: Should Sociology be a Science? YES! Sociologists such as Durkheim and Comte describe themselves as positivists. Positivists believe that it is possible to apply the logic and methods of natural sciences to the study of society and in doing so we will gain true and objective knowledge. They refer to this as ‘objective factual reality.’ This knowledge will help us to solve social problems and achieve progress (enlightenment project.) Patterns, laws and inductive reasoning:For positivists, reality is not random or chaotic (Postmodernism) but we can observe patterns in behaviour just as in science we can observe empirical facts like ‘water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.’ Positivists believe that sociologists can discover the laws that determine how society works. The method for doing this is called ‘inductive reasoning.’ This involves gathering an accumulation of data about the world through measurement and observation. The more observations we make and the more data we accumulate mean we can verify our theory. Patterns we observe, whether in nature or society can all be explained in the same way; by finding the facts that cause them. For example, physics explains how the apple falls from the tree, material deprivation explains educational failure. Positivist Sociologists seek to discover the causes of the patterns they observe. They can then predict future events and guide social policy. RECAP EDUCATION POLICY BY FILLING IN THE BLANK. CAUSE EFFECT POLICIES IMPLEMENTEDMaterial Deprivation = Educational failure ……………………………………………………………………..Answer the questions:Why did science make a big impression on Sociologists such as Comte and Durkheim? What does it mean if a Sociologist describes themselves as a ‘positivist?’ What can the enlightenment project help to solve? Provide examples. What does ‘inductive reasoning involve?’ Objective Quantitative Research:Positivists use quantitative data to uncover and measure patterns of behaviour. By analysing quantitative data positivists seek to uncover the laws of cause and effect that determine behaviour. Stretch yourself: List the quantitative research methods that positivists would favour in order of preference and explain why, you could use page 188 of the textbook to help you: Lab experiments Field experiments Questionnaires Official statistics Comparative experiment Structured Interviews Positivism and Suicide: Reading page 188 answer the questionsWhy did Durkheim choose to study suicide? What did he observe? 3. What did he conclude?Interpretivism: Should Sociology be a science? NO! Interpretivists argue that Sociology should not model itself on the natural sciences. They criticise positivism’s scientific approach as inadequate for studying human beings. The subject matter of SociologyInterpretivists argue that subject matter is meaningful social action and that we can only understand it by successfully interpreting the motives and meanings of the actors involved. Science deals with cause and effect but Sociology deals with human beings. Because of their views many interpretivists reject the use of quantitative research methods in Sociology. Natural Science = matter without consciousness Sociology = people who have consciousness and construct their world by attaching meaning to it. 429577556134000GH Mead argued that rather than responding automatically to stimuli human beings interpret meaning and then choose how to respond to it. For example stopping at a red light may seem automatic... Explain the thought process a motorist goes through when the lightsBegin to change: For interpretivists individuals are not puppets on a string manipulated By supposed external ‘social facts’ like positivists believe. Qualitative research and verstehen:Interpretivists argue that we need to see the world from the actors’ point of view. They reject quantitative methods in favour of qualitative ones. Which methods would interpretivists use in their research? Types of interpretivism:Interactionists:Believe we can have causal explanations but reject positivist idea that you must have a hypothesis before research begins. They say that this risks imposing our own view onto the research with us deciding what is important. We then distort reality. Ideas emerge gradually from observations we make.Phenomenologists and Ethnomethodologists: Argue social reality is simply the shared knowledge of its members, there is no possibility of cause and effect because people’s actions are not governed by external forces. Do not even attempt to explain social events but rather how the social actors construct social events and meaning.Interpretivism and Suicide:Use the textbook to outline the interpretivist view of suicide:Postmodernism, Feminism and scientific Sociology: Theory Views on scientific SociologyFeminism PostmodernismCan Sociology be a Science? Positivists and Interpretivists disagree on whether it is desirable for Sociology to be a science but they do both agree on what science is. They both see science as ‘inductive reasoning’ or ‘verificationism.’ However a number of Sociologists and Philosophers have put forward very different views on what science is and these views have major implications for whether it is in fact possible for Sociology to be a science at all. Karl PopperPopper notes how many systems of thought, such as religions and political ideologies claim to have knowledge of the world. Popper rejects the view that the main feature of science is inductive reasoning and verificationism. Popper argues that we cannot prove a theory right simply by observing more of it. He uses the generalisation ‘all swans are white’ to illustrate this. We can’t prove that all swans are white but we can destroy the theory once someone observes a black swan! Therefore science is based upon the principle of ‘falsification’ rather than verification. You cannot prove a theory right; you can only prove it wrong! AO2 Application: Can you think of examples of theories which have been proved wrong? Truth‘All knowledge is provisional, temporary, capable of refutation at any moment.’ Popper (1965)Open belief systems:In Popper’s view science is an open belief system because it is open to scrutiny. He argues that science thrives in open and liberal societies because of free expression, however closed societies are dominated by an official belief system which claims ‘absolute truth’ so science may cause conflict. Implications for Sociology:AO2 Application: What does this mean for Sociology? Thomas Khun: Khun believes that science is governed by paradigms or dominant ways of thinking. The scientific community define what science is and even tell scientists how to think and what kinds of questions they should ask and the answers they should find, he refers to this as ‘puzzle solving.’ In Khun’s view science cannot exist without a shared paradigm. Therefore rather than being ‘open’ as Popper suggests science is in fact a ‘closed belief system.’ Scientific revolutions:Puzzle solving is not always successful, from time to time the pieces in the jigsaw do not fit and there is an anomaly that the paradigm cannot account for, as anomalies mount up scientists reformulate the paradigm to account for them. Science reaches ‘crisis point’ and rival paradigms formulate which leads to ‘scientific revolutions.’ For Khun rival paradigms cannot be judged or measured by the same set of standards and eventually one paradigm will win and become accepted by the scientific community. Implications for Sociology:AO2 Application: What does this mean for Sociology?Realism, science and Sociology: A third view comes from Keat and Urry (1982) who stress the similarities between sociology and some kinds of natural sciences. They distinguish between open and closed belief systems:Open systems – the researcher cannot control and measure all variables eg in meteorologyClosed systems - researcher can control and measure all variables eg physics and chemistryRealists argue Sociologists study open systems, the processes are too complex to make exact predictions, for example, we cannot predict crime rate precisely because there are too many variables. Realists also reject the positivist view that science is only concerned with observable phenomena, they say that in Physics for example, you cannot directly observe the interior of a black hole in space. For Realists both natural and social sciences attempt to explain the causes of events in terms of underlying structures and processes. We can’t see these structures but we know they exists because of their effects, for example we cannot see social class but we know its effects on individuals and groups. Realists therefore see little difference between natural science and sociology. Conclusions: Can Sociology be a science? Which is the best argument and why? Item APositivists believe that Sociology can be a science by following the methods and logic of the natural sciences. In the view of positivists this involves, gathering objective quantitative data to verify or prove hypothesise and discover causal laws. While accepting the positivist’s view of science, interpretivists reject the claim that we can study human beings in this way. However, positivism is just one view of what constitutes science. For example, Popper argues that science involves seeking to falsify hypothesise, whilst Khun argues that scientific is one that has a united paradigm. Applying material from item A and your own knowledge, evaluate the claim that whether Sociology can be a science depends on what we mean by science in the first place.(20)Part 2: Sociology and ValuesObjectives:Understand the meaning of objectivity, subjectivity and value freedom Know the main views put forward of the relationship between Sociology and valuesBe able to evaluate the strengths and limitations of different views as to whether Sociology can and should be value free. 1590675330835What are values? 00What are values? When we talk about value freedom in Sociology this means that… The Founding fathers of Sociology:4705350151130002466975131445001079510922000Who said what?! Marx, Durkheim or Weber… 3295650219075'Sociology's job is to uncover the truth about how society works. Sociology is free from values because society is studied in the same way the natural sciences are. Through research the correct society will be revealed.'00'Sociology's job is to uncover the truth about how society works. Sociology is free from values because society is studied in the same way the natural sciences are. Through research the correct society will be revealed.'12763502247900'We can't really distinguish between values and facts but values are important when deciding what to research, whilst carrying out the research, though we need to remain value free and objective.''We can't really distinguish between values and facts but values are important when deciding what to research, whilst carrying out the research, though we need to remain value free and objective.'-352425133350'Sociology is value free because its job is to reveal human society through the evolution from ancient society, to a classless one where exploitation, alienation and poverty is eradicated. I'm a scientist but wait a second…. Isn't communism a value?'00'Sociology is value free because its job is to reveal human society through the evolution from ancient society, to a classless one where exploitation, alienation and poverty is eradicated. I'm a scientist but wait a second…. Isn't communism a value?'Early Positivists such as Comte and Durkheim argued that the creation of a better society is not about values but it is the job of Science to uncover the truth about society ‘The enlightenment project.’ It can be debated as to whether or not Marx was a positivist. We know that he definitely saw himself as a scientist. He believed that his method of historical analysis revealed the truth about the stages of society that would lead to a classless society.Weber argued that vales are important when deciding what to research but whilst conducting the research the Sociologists should remain ‘value free.’ Values guide researchData collection and hypothesis testing Interpreting data and unconscious bias CitizenshipValue Freedom and Commitment:By the mid-20th century modern positivists tended to argue that their own values were irrelevant. They wanted to appear scientific and we're now hiring themselves out to solve the problems of governments, businesses and the military and their job was simply to uncover the truth and to be ‘free from values.’ Critics, however argued that this reflected a desire to make Sociology ‘respectable’ because science was held in such high esteem. Sociologists such as Marxists, Feminists and Interactionists argued for a committed Sociology. Where they would not only spell out their values but openly take sides. Gouldner argues that by the 50s sociologists had become ‘spiritless technicians.’ Sociologists were now problem takers rather problem makers, they were hired by governments and businesses and promised to solve their problems. Therefore they would not want to ‘rock the boat’ and criticise their paymasters.Taking sides:Myrdal argues that sociologists should not only spell out their values but openly take side. Along with Gouldner he believes that it is neither possible nor desirable to keep values out of research. Impossible: Because ether the Sociologists or their pay masters values are bound to be reflected in their work.Undesirable: Without values to guide research sociologists are merely selling their services to the highest bidder. Becker argues that values are always present in sociology. However positivists and functionalists have tended to take the side of the powerful, police, psychiatrists and so on. Becker argues that instead of seeing things from the perspective of the over dog (powerful) we should see things from the perspective of the underdog, the criminals, mental patients and other powerless groups. There is an emphasis from Interactionists that we should empathise with the underdog and give them a voice. This is also reflected in the type of research methods they use. AO2 Application: What type of research methods do they favour and why would these be appropriate for studying criminals and mental patients? Gouldner criticises Becker for taking a romantic and sentimental approach, he adopts a Marxist perspective arguing that sociologists should take the side of those ‘fighting back’ for example, people struggling to change society. Other issues:Use the textbook pages 199-200 to complete the table:Funding and careersPerspectives and Methods Relativism: Postmodernists take a relativist view. They argue that all perspectives involve values and that there is no way knowing which one is true. Rather there is not only single ‘truth’ but there are ‘many truths.’ Each perspective is just another version of reality! Sociologist/TheoryCan and Should Sociology be value free? Why?Durkheim YBecause sociology free from values will reveal the correct society (enlightenment) and we are able to use objective research methods which are completely detached. ComteMarxWeber BeckerMyrdalGouldner NBecause the researchers or their paymasters values are bound to be reflected in the work. Sociologists should take the side of the political radicals fighting back against the establishment. FeminismRelativism Item ASome Sociologists argue that that their research should take the side of the underdog. For example, Becker points out that traditionally, Sociology has tended to take the side of powerful groups within society, often accepting their view of the world. As a result, the standpoints of less powerful groups have largely been hidden. Becker therefore argues that Sociology should identify with the underdog, empathise with them and uncover their view of the world. However, others have argued that there is no place for values in Sociology and that Sociologists should take an ‘objective value neutral approach’ to research. Applying material from Item A and your knowledge, evaluate the view that Sociologists should make a commitment to taking sides when conducting sociological research (20) Glossary of key concepts to learn:VerificationismPositivismCausal laws Interpretivism Hypo-thetico deductive model Falsification MacroMicroQuantitative researchQualitative research Verstehen ParadigmsValue Freedom ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download