What is science? / Positivist views / Interpretivist (anti-positivist, interactionism) views
Science is defined in terms of its methodology. It uses an experimental procedure and produces knowledge which is ‘certain’.
Characteristics of ideal type view of science (scientific method/experimental design):
- Follow the hypothetico-deductive model based on a hypothesis or testable statement e.g. ‘young people have a greater involvement in crime due to status frustration’.
- Falsify hypothesis (try and prove it wrong)
- Only look at what is directly observable or empirical (no feelings, emotions etc.)
- Objective/value free – approaching topics with an open mind, avoiding bias, prejudices and personal beliefs.
- Data is high in reliability.
- Subject matter of society is similar to natural science. Therefore they believe that humans like rocks, gases etc. react to external forces. Human behaviour like natural matter is therefore seen to be caused and predictable. For example structural functionalists claim that kinship and cultural institutions such as religion and education constrain human behaviour through socialisation.
- Sociologists can follow the logic of natural science research. Although experimental research is rarely used because of practical (difficulties controlling variables) and ethical issues (potential harm to participants), the logic of natural science research can be followed.
- Quantitative/statistical
- Standardisation
- Objective/value free
- Only look at what is directly observable (no feelings, emotions etc.)
- Follow the hypothetico deductive model
- There are fundamental differences between the social world and the natural/physical world. Interpretvisits claim that humans unlike natural matter do not react in a causal like way to external forces and their behaviour cannot be predicted with certainty. Humansact in terms of feelings, meanings and emotions. Individual social actors are also said to interpret events during social interaction and that this gives meaning to actions. For example phenomenologists such as Katz claim that crime is not simply structurally caused but guided by individual meanings such as the search for excitement and establishing a reputation.
- There are ethical issues; humans are not likely to agree to being tested, experimented on, interrogated or observed in laboratories like rats in a cage!
- It is not possible to follow scientific methodology. All research is inevitably subjective (value laden). For example the topic that is chosen for research, questions asked in interviews and the way that data is analysed. Also the ‘Hawthorne Effect’ may occur, where people’s behaviour changes when they know they are being studied.
- Much of social life or alleged social facts are social constructions. For example it is difficult to get reliable statistics on health and crime because the data is dependant on members of public reporting their illness or crimes they observe (i.e. the statistics are social constructions).
Critique of the ideal type view of science:
- Natural scientists do not always work in the way described above:
- Not always objective/ value free – All scientists have ideologies which affect their research. Scientific theories shape the way they interpret evidence. For exampleDarwin explains natural matter and social behaviour in terms of natural selection and evolution.
- Funding institutions affect the way in which research is done and the outcomes. For example tobacco firms only fund research which concludes there is a limited impact on health by smoking.
- Concerns with academic status and career prospects can lead scientists to be biased and even fraudulent. For example Cyril Burt made up results from ‘phantom identical twins’ to support his genetic explanation of intelligence.
- Lynch argues that scientists are less objective than they claim. Lynch argues that scientists disregard evidence that goes against their theories. This is demonstrated by the case of Dr Velikovsky in 1950. He published ‘Worlds of Collision’ in which he put forward a radical and new theory about the origins of the earth. Instead of putting Velikovsky’s new theory to test, scientists rushed to boycott the publisher and reject the theory before they had even read the book. Any scientist who called for a fair hearing of the new theory were victimised and some even lost their jobs.
- The way they interpret evidence is driven by their theories (ideologies). Little attempt to falsify hypothesis ever occurs – they use evidence to confirm theories.
- Khun – Science takes place within a paradigm (a set of beliefs). This means that science is not objective as these assumptions influence the questions you ask, the way you interpret evidence.
Sociology should be a science:
- Produces knowledge that is certain.
- Can generalise.
- Establish laws of cause and effect.
- Make predictions.
- Can be replicated.
- Gain data that is high in reliability.
- Not desirable to be scientific. Therefore interpretivists favour the use of qualitative methods such as observation and informal interviews to find out about meanings, feelings and actions. Furthermore a non scientific approach generates data that is highly valid, insightful and achieves verstehen. For example interpretivist feminists Dobash and Dobash gained a true and detailed understanding of women’s experience of domestic violence by carrying out informal interviews which lasted for up to twelve hours.
- A further example is illustrated trough McIntyre’s journalistic CPO study into football hooliganism. McIntyre managed to build up rapport and consequently achieved verstehen with the Chelsea head-hunters.
Critical philosophical points- Is there such a thing as scientific knowledge?
- Kuhn – scientific revolutions – Paradigm shifts (new scientific theories replace old ones). Scientific theories change (as shown by the history of science) and hence claims of scientific truth is always uncertain. For example Stephen Hawkin has recently changed his theory of black holes being empty.
- Postmodernism – Postmodernism rejects the idea that scientific thought exists. This is because all knowledge is uncertain. No scientific theory can claim truth because all knowledge is open to doubt. Thus they reject meta-narratives (grand theories) and argue instead that we should recognise and tolerate competing explanations of natural and social events.
- Postmodernism - Science is just another meta-narrative and has recently lost support due to problems such as GM food and super bugs – rational thinking has failed and therefore sociology has nothing to learn from the natural sciences.
- Realism – (Urry) – Realists re-define what is meant by science. Science can incorporate more subjective analysis, does not have to make firm predictions, legitimate to study social processes which are not immediately observable. In this way positivist and interpretivist sociology can be seen as scientific. Job of scientists (natural and social) is to explain the causes of events in a ‘more or less scientific’ way.