Sociological debates Flashcards
(30 cards)
1
Q
1 - Positivism v Interpretivism
A
Positivists - macro, numbers, large amounts of data
Interpretivists - words, meanings and micro
2
Q
2 - Values and ethics in sociology
A
- Sociologists do not want to ‘leave fingerprints’ in their research; they want to be objective, impartial, reliable, valid and useful
How values can impact social research ->
1) Individual values
2) How these values influence the choice of research
3) This will then influence the methods of research
4) This then influences the interpretation of data
5) This then causes recognition of the impact of research in society
What is the place of personal and political values in theory and research?
- Sociology as a science; must be free from personal or political bias = VALUE FREE
- Personal values should not intrude on research but it is impossible to keep them out = VALUE LADEN
- Sociology is a tool used to bring about social change; it is not just about social change; it is not just an academic subject = COMMITTED SOCIOLOGY
3
Q
2# - Value Free Sociology
A
‘Value-free sociology is a myth’ - Alvin Gouldner 1975
- Positivists say objective sociology is possible (Durkheim / Comte)
- External reality / social facts exist; official statistics for example are not truly social facts as there is a human influence on what is recorded and who is being asked etc
- Social facts - things about society that are there all the time; Durkheim’s suicide study; reliable
- Karl Marx believed he was objective AND committed to a cause - possible?
- Methods tend to be quantitative (positivist)
- Positivist - comparable, physical science, unbiased, social facts - truth and objective. Very hard to come at a problem with no view or at the least, to keep it out of your choice, methodology and interpretation of results. Pos methods help with this!
- Choice of method -key - but there is an imposition problem - if the researcher determines the qu values are imposed
- Interpretivists - similar issue ‘qu why do poor kids underachieve at school’ has already excluded issues of gender and ethnicity which might be more the reason for underachievement; a Value has been expressed simply in how the question is worded. Interpretivist data is more open ended and therefore less imposition. The data is driven by the respondent (but interpretation by researcher may still show values)
- Positivists - juts use secondary data - no value judgement -but it was collected for a reason - may reflect values of powerful (e.g. suicide stats based on judgment of coroner).
- Will never get 100% value freedom as there is always human influence in choosing the area of study - some issues are more value laden than others
https: //docs.google.com/document/d/1Und3SFP4y9msOCwkReur9rQcom32KrjXvNeaAiNNryk/edit
4
Q
2# - Value Laden Sociology
A
Can’t help but have values enter research because:
- Historical context - Weber “personal values inevitably influence research choice”
- Funding - people who finance research have a reason and can block publication if results are not what they want
- Careers - all sociologists have career goals and personal ambition - Kuhn “sociologists study ‘fashionable’ subjects”
- Personal interests - sociologists are ‘normal’ (!) people; we all hold beliefs
- E.g. Plummer (2000) - published widely on sexual issues and ‘queer theory’ because of his own sexual preference.
- E.g. Feminists select to write about women and do so from a perspective to combat the malestream view of male sociologists and institutions.
- Postmodern critique - Lyotard (1984) - science is also based on values; science is nothing different.
We see sociologists address the presence of values through:
- Reflexivity - sociologists write up what their beliefs are and how they may have influenced their research (i.e. they are honest!)
- Narratives - different viewpoints and voices are included alongside that of the researcher to provide more than just their values
Funding - charities biased by interests, government may limit what you can publish.
Unis need to get funding - can’t be too radical.
Pref for stats/positivism - cheaper and quicker
5
Q
2# - Committed Sociology - values should guide research
A
- E.G. critical / radical sociologists (marxists/feminists) hold clear values and write for a purpose.
- Liberal view - sociology should be sympathetic to disadvantaged groups (Becker took the side of the ‘underdog’ e.g. those labelled deviant need protection). Becker still felt aiming for the ‘best’ sociology was important and be as objective as possible whilst writing for a cause.
- Radical view - Gouldner - all sociologists want to be published and employed - these desires can intrude into their research. Sociology cannot be value free.
- Marxist - Althusser (1969) - role of sociology to uncover ruling class exploitation of the poor. He saw sociology as science but felt it should still promote radical change.
- Becker - whose side are we on>values always present - sociologist should be on the side of underdog
- Gouldner disagrees with Becker - not underdog but the middle dog the radical who needs to fight back (e.g. the police man doing the bidding of the law maker) Gouldner was very scathing of sociologists he thought had abandoned their values and just work for the money and become ‘hired hands
- He felt sociologists should take moral responsibility for their work. Rather than ‘problem makers’ he called them ‘problem takers’ - ie researching whatever problems large orgs wanted them to look at at the expense of their own credibility as researcher.
6
Q
2# - Questions around committed sociology
A
QUESTION: Can you be objective AND promote radical change?
- Feminism - Hammersley (1992) - 4 ways feminist research is NOT objective:
- Starts with a belief about subordination of women
- Women’s feelings form the basis of research
- Hierarchy of researcher/subject should not exist
- Aim of research is emancipation of women NOT creating credible research
QUESTION: Is committed sociology a good or bad idea?
- Standpoint Theory - using your background and experience provides valuable insights and more valid data. E.g. being black, w/c, female can give a unique perspective
7
Q
2 - Conclusions about values and ethics in sociology
A
- Durkheim says to be scientific and objective - values have no place; (NO)
- Weber says it is inevitable that values will be there for some parts of the research process (choice of topic and interpretation of data) but not others (data collection); (PARTLY)
- Gouldner says it is “unavoidable” and “undesirable” to keep them out,but values can be made clear; (YES)
- Becker says values must be there - sociologists should fight for the underdog! (YES)
8
Q
2 - Criticisms of committed sociology
A
- It is little more than personal opinion
- Value laden means low validity (they will find out what they want to find out! - feminists will find patriarchy, marxists will find exploitation)
- ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are personal and can’t be tested.
9
Q
3 - Sociologists and Social Policy - What is social policy
A
Legislation introduced to solve issues in society or to elicit change in society
Areas of focus -
1) Family; Married Man’s Tax Allowance 2003
2) Education; Education Reform Act 1988
3) Crime; Age of Criminal Responsibility
4) Health; Public Health Act 1984 -> Coronavirus Act 2020
5) Work; Age restrictions on child labour
6) Immigration; Asylum regulations - who can settle / right to remain
- Political proposal
- Designed to reform / change / improve society
- May be law if that party is in power
- Produced by a ruling party, opposition, think tanks, pressure groups, lobbyists, charities etc
10
Q
3 - Arguments that social policy should not be influenced by sociologists
A
- Say that social policy decides how resources are distributed amongst different groups where they are designed to have an effect; it should be equitable
- Sociology is an academic subject
- Weber - the job of the professional sociologist is to work out how the social world works but not intervene within it (this is the job of politicians) - politicians can ask for sociologists help for evidence but that is all
11
Q
3 - Worsley and Social Policy (they are interconnected)
A
- Sociological problems are different from social problems
- Sociological problems; feature of social life in need of explanation; not necessarily a ‘problem’ e.g. manners and culture
- Social problems; studied because they cause public friction or private misery - e.g. gangs, crime, poverty and inequality
- However, not all are in agreement about what is a social problem; for example, is rising crime a problem as it shows disregard for law and societal breakdown, or is it good because it shows an effective justice system?
- A social problem causes harm to society (public or private misery) and needs collective action to solve it; housing, employment, social care, education, crime and transport
- A sociological problem is a social or theoretical issue that needs explaining; improvement in girl’s achievement, ill health, crime, poverty and educational underachievement
- All social problems are sociological problems, but all sociological problems are not social problems
12
Q
3 - Reasons why sociology might not influence social policy
A
- Unpopular - if the government doesn’t support the decision, it won’t happen
- Expensive - it is expensive to employ sociologists
- Opportunity missed - may not be able to access the study, those who make the policy or to be published
- Ideology - ideologies differ between sociologists and politicians causes a disconnect
- Government need votes, and so will be unlikely to do anything controversial
- Government’s are restricted by globalisation e.g. do not want businesses to leave the UK
- Financial constraints
- Policies meet opposition
- Economists don’t agree with sociologists; different priorities
- Governments are more influenced by think tanks than sociology
- Governments can be selective to what they listen to
- Local authority more likely to listen to sociologists than central government; social research influences people who then use power to influence politicians
13
Q
3 - Giddens (2006); 9 ways sociology contributes to social policy (Yes, it does impact social policy)
A
- Providing awareness of cultural differences rather than a hunch / stereotype
- Providing self-awareness and understanding - reflexivity / self-reflection / subgroups
- Changing assumptions - don’t go with common sense
- Providing theoretical framework - New Right / Third Way
- Providing practical professional knowledge - experts
- Identifying social problems
- Providing evidence - research; it’s what sociologists do
- Identifying unintended consequences - evaluate existing policies
- Assessing the results of policy
14
Q
3 - Committed sociology; critical and radical sociology
A
- Believes that sociology should solve social problems.
- Sociology can influence social problems because:
- Government funding directs the research (more likely the research will check the effectiveness of Gov’t policy)
- ESRC - Economic and Social Research Centre decides lots of funding
15
Q
3 - Who says sociology can influence social policy?
A
Social Democrats -
- Influenced Labour policy
- The development of the concept of relative poverty by Peter Townsend led to anti-poverty programmes by Labour governments of the 1960’s and 70’ and by New Labour in the late 90’s.
- The Black Report identified a range of cultural and structural causes of inequalities in health. The Black report strongly argued for structural/material solutions to reduce the health divide. They believed that the top priority of governments should be to tackle poverty and low income.
- Liberal Feminist campaigns have led to changes in education to prevent bias against girls and have led to offences such as domestic violence being taken more seriously by the police.
- Left realists - Lea and Young have used the results of local victim surveys to put forward a range of practical solutions to reduce crime. They claim that state intervention and community involvement are essential to halt the spread in crime. For example, they have encouraged closer partnerships between the police and local communities. They also make a strong case for fewer custodial sentences and more community service orders.
The Third Way
- Influenced New Labour (Blair)
- Anthony Giddens - guru for Blair
- 3rd way - new solutions
- Giddens argued for social reform (e.g. limiting social exclusion through changing work, health, education and crime policy)
- Giddens led a unit which reported direct to the Cabinet - Working Tax Credit, Child Benefit increase, Sure Start programme etc.
16
Q
3 - Functionalists and sociology with social policy
A
- Comte and Durkheim - sociology can do good things (restore order!) also positivist = Gov’t LOVES stats!
Social facts should be applied to society - they can help make it better - Comte - sociology should be the ‘priesthood’ which guides the Gov’t about how to make society better.
- Evaluation: too conservative, supports status quo, functionalism has lost its impact so it has little impact on social policy.
- Peter Townsend - worked tirelessly to encourage Gov’ts to end poverty and social inequality (he founded alliances, charities, action groups and say on Labour subcommittees). He used his social research to try and improve social policy for the greater good.
17
Q
3 - The New Right and sociology with social policy
A
- The New Right are often against sociologists making social policy recommendations as they believe that the state should have a minimal involvement in social problems.
- They stress individual responsibility instead. Murray maintains that providing generous welfare (as favoured by sociologists such as Townsend) as a social policy solution for poverty actually makes the problem worse.
- This is because he believes it creates a dangerous underclass who become dependent on welfare. However, there is a contradiction in New Right thinking.
- The New Right believe that governments should intervene when it suits their beliefs. For example, social policy initiatives that prop up the traditional nuclear family and legislation which restricts gypsies rights.
18
Q
3 - Marxists and sociology with social policy
A
- Hard line Marxists such as Westergaard & Resler are against making social policy recommendations on welfare.
- They believe that if sociologists such as Townsend encourage more benefits this will only serve to reduce class solidarity.
- This is because they believe that welfare ‘buys off’ the working class and prevents them from realising their true class interests; the state represents the interests of the ruling class and social policies reflect their interests as they fund the research
- For Westergaard and Resler the social problems faced by the working class (e.g. poverty) can only be overcome through a proletarian revolution (not social policy), whose end aim would be to create a communist society.
- Favour committed sociology - Marxists should reveal the unpleasant truth about capitalist policies rather than solve the problems, and so the false class consciousness will fade and the revolution will start
Believe social policies:
- Provide ideological legitimation to mask capitalist exploitation
- Maintain the labour force
- Means of preventing revolution
19
Q
3 - Feminists and sociology with social policy
A
- Feminist research has had an impact on social policy. For example, it is responsible for promoting more positive images on females in learning materials such as textbooks.
- In addition, it has influence teacher training; sensitising teachers to the need to avoid gender bias and promote inclusiveness for both sexes. This reflects the liberal feminist view that anti-discrimination reforms will promote equality between the sexes.
- However, radical feminists criticise liberal feminists for advocating anti-discrimination polices to resolve sexual discrimination in society. Radical feminists argue that women’s emancipation can only be achieved by dismantling patriarchy.
20
Q
3 - Postmodernism and sociology with social policy
A
- Some postmodernists would claim that sociologists are in no position to make social policy recommendations. This is because they argue that it is not possible to objectively identify the truth and therefore all sociological knowledge is ‘uncertain’.
- They thus claim that there is no valid basis for sociological policy intervention. This has led Bauman to claim that in ‘postmodern times’ sociologists should merely take the role of ‘interpreters’ and can not and should not be seen as ‘legislators’, as they did in ‘modernist times’.
21
Q
4 Is sociology a science? - Components of science
A
Science, for many sociologists, is a feature of modernist society. Modernity was an age of rational, logical thought where science replaced belief in supernatural and religion and science became seen as the superior discipline. Early positivists (Comte, Durkheim) were convinced that sociology could be a science in the sense that we could study society in the same way scientists study the natural world.
1) Empirical and measurable - yes; positivism
2) Testable - yes
3) Theoretical - causal relationships - partial
4) Cumulative - Yes
5) Objective - Partially
22
Q
4 - The scientific method and sociology
A
Scientific method -
1) Hypothetico-deductive: (positivist)
- Hypothesis -> experiment -> analyse data -> assess if hypothesis is true
- Top to bottom (come up with a question and prove it)
2) Inductive: (interpretivist)
- Experiment -> analyse -> draw a conclusion from the data
- Bottom to top (notice something from an experiment)
23
Q
4 - Karl Popper and falsification
A
Karl Popper - ‘You can say something like all swans are white, but if you only look for white swans that is all you will find’
- It has potential to be a science - has to meet a criteria of falsifying rather than verifying how science does
- Good scientific research should falsify conclusions - try to prove them wrong
- Popper said that no hypothesis is every 100% true - ALL have a chance of being wrong (you only need 1 black swan in the face of 1000 white ones to prove that ‘all swans are white’ is false.
- Durkheim began with evidence (suicide stats) and tried to find a hypothesis/explanation to fit. This is inductive reasoning.
- Popper argues that theories should be able to be proven wrong, and not just verified
- Sociology is falsifiable because -> can test and retest hypothesis’ to see if similar results are found
- Sociology is not falsifiable because -> subjective opinions are not able to be falsified, as some theoretical approaches cannot be as there is little evidence to suggest they do exist, let alone that they do not e.g. concepts such as false class consciousness, ISA and RSA
Features of the argument:
- Falsifiable - can be false
- Verification - truth of hypothesis’
- Interpretivism and positivism (Comte and Durkheim)
- Open + closed systems (Realism) -> Keat and Urry Sayer
- Paradigms - Kuhn
- Yes - yes it should be, yes it is
- No - no it isn’t, no it shouldn’t be
- Other - has potential
24
Q
4 - Positivists and sociology as a science
A
Positivists say sociology is a science because you can determine social facts. Class is a social fact; it exists external to individuals but exerts influence over them. Sociology is scientific because:
1) human behaviour is a response to observable facts
2) quantitative methods exist
3) research on a hypothesis is possible
4) sociology focuses on external structures, not individuals.
Social facts - A truth or law about society and behaviour
- Open system - less control over variables
- Closed system - sociologists can use this to gain more control over variables
25
#4 - Realism
- Realist sociologists say you can't study and observe social structures in an empirical way but you can study the effects of the structures on people. For example, you can't see a belief system but you can see people going to places of worship. Before the 1960's you couldn't see the Earth was spherical until we went up to space and observed it for the first time.
- Andrew Sayer (1992) says natural science isn't as precise as Karl Popper claims. Natural science tends to study closed systems whereas social science tends to study open systems. There are natural sciences (e.g meteorology / weather forecasting) which works in an open system and accepts a level of unpredictability. It is still considered a science.
- Realism suggests both positivist and interpretivist positions misunderstand what natural and social sciences are like. Both have their issues but they both 'do' science so their position is, yes, sociology is a science but both definitions of what science is, might not be accurate.
- Sociology is a study of society and humans which has humanities and scientific aspects
26
#4 - Kuhn (1962) and Paradigms
- Sociology has no unifying paradigm = therefore not a science
- Paradigms are a framework or set of principles that guide thinking - Kuhn thinks it is not a science but it could be because of the competing theories that have their own individual framework of investigation (we are in a pre-paradigmatic stage and without this we cannot be scientific as there is no common view or paradigm commonality) - more of a postmodern view
- Kuhn doubts that scientists try to falsify in the way Popper hopes that they would. Kuhn says that scientists are all operating in a 'paradigm', this is a time where established and accepted truths act as a framework for other research.
- Example - issue of climate change. Sutton (2015) said that some scientists were raising concerns about climate change in the 1950s but they were largely ignored and their work disparaged as the current 'paradigm' was not one where concerns about climate change existed.
- Scientists, says Kuhn, rarely challenge the paradigm in which they work so, what happens is they try to fit their work into the paradigm. One scientist 'breaking the mould' and doing something groundbreaking isn't really enough. You need hundreds of examples before there is a 'scientific revolution' and the paradigm changes.
- Scientists today who see a future in human cloning are said to be working outside the paradigm and are often ridiculed and not given licenses to experiment.
27
#4 - Kaplan in support of Kuhn
Kaplan - support Kuhn.
- He says there is little kudos or reputation to be gained for repeating 'old science' so some scientists try to do work outside of the established paradigm but this leads to small scale samples, difficult to get funding and poor results.; not enough to cause a revolution.
- Kaplan also claims that scientists cheat, exaggerate, manipulate their data and often feel pressured to get particular result.
- He says only around 25% of original data is published in research papers for public scrutiny (suggesting the scientists don't want the other 75% scrutinised).
- He says scientists re-run trials until they get the result they want, even if they have had numerous results they don't want.
- The final, successful trial is written up and published and the failures ignored. There are things which jeopardise 'good science' (and, funnily enough they are also the things which jeopardise 'good sociology')
28
#4 - Postmodernism and science
- Postmodernism - science doesn't really exist, it is a metanarrative and not more or less true than any other story about the world around us.
- Science, say PM has created a loss of faith in modernity as science has sometimes created more risk and fear (e.g. the introduction of genetically modified crops could destabilise global food production) and therefore, as Rorty claims, scientists don't really know everything and have simply replaced priests as our go-to source of information.
- PM view is that society is too fragmented and too rapidly changing to find patterns and the idea of value freedom (required in science) is a pretence.
1) pressure to publish
2) values and ethics impacting on research
3) career progression and ambition - Gouldner comparison
4) funding and the agenda of the funding body
- Ulrich Beck - a lot of uncertainty and unpredictability of life course
29
#4 - Reasons why sociology is not a science
1) even lab experiments are not good enough
2) you can't predict the unpredictable and people are very unpredictable!
3) an artificial environment for people doesn't work - you can't control the variables and, if you do, you change the results
4) ethics - not sure people want to be experimented on!
5) Hawthorne effect kicks in when people know they are being researched
6) validity - people don't behave like chemicals or rocks or plant cells; they lie, exaggerate, reject the label, change meanings, interpret
7) empirical observation is not possible and it is limiting
8) interpretivism - no social facts, all social constructions. A tree is a tree but a death could be murder, suicide, manslaughter etc depending on the label.
30
#4 - Arguments summarised
Durkheim - yes, positivist research can identify social facts about how society is, and we can study institutions empirically the way science can
Popper - Falsification; if theories can be falsified rather than verified, this strengthens the theory; if people cannot prove you wrong it is a better theory but sociology doesn't currently
Kuhn - No, there isn't a constant paradigm and framework for investigation; we are in a period of pre-paradigms and so sociology has potential
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/102BQ0OQStaR2ITSlZSSwfRKjn6xNezHaR2oDYB_iZuA/edit#slide=id.g1334b2c5bd1_0_15
