Objectivity and values in sociology

- all members of society have beliefs.

- Some argue it is possible and desirable for sociologists to keep their subjective values out of their research.

- others argue that staying value neutral is impossible as sociologists are humans that are studying other humans.

- Some argue that it is desirable for sociologists to use their values to improve society. 

- Early positivists (Comte and Durkheim) believe that sociology's job was to discover the truth about how society worked to improve human life.

- Sociologists would be able to say with scientific certainty what is best for society.

- Marx saw himself as a scientist. He believed he discovered the truth about society's future and the inevitability of a classless society. 

Max Weber:

Weber distinguishes between value judgements and facts. He argues that values cannot be proven or disproved by facts. However, he still sees an essential role for values in sociological research.

1. Values guide to research - we can only choose areas of study in terms of their value relevance to use.

2. Data collection and hypothesis research - sociologists must be as objective as possible when collecting facts e.g not asking leading questions. 

3. Values in the interpretation of data - facts need to be set in a theoretical framework to understand their significance. This is influenced by the sociologist's values which must be stated explicitly. 

4. Values and the sociologist as a citizen - scientists and sociologists are also citizens They cannot doge the moral issues their work raises or how it is used by hiding behind 'value freedom'. 

Weber sees values as relevent when: choosing research, interpreting data and in the use the findings are put towards. VALUES MUST BE KEPT OUT OF THE PROCESS OF GATHERING DATA>

Sociology cannot tell us what values we should hold.

It can tell us what means we should adopt if we want to achieve certain goals that we value and the consequences of holding those values. 

20th century positivists:

They argue that their own values were irrelevant to their research because science is concerned with facts and so sociologists should remain neutral.

Gouldner argues that by the 1950s, American sociologists in particular became spiritless technicians that hired themselves out to organisations such as the gov and the military.

Gouldner believes they were dodging the moral issues their work raused.

Committed sociology:

Myrdal and Gouldner argue that sociologists should identity their values and take sides. It is undesirable to be value-neutral as without letting their values guide their research, sociologists are merely putting up their services for sale. 

Whose side are we on?:

The interactionsts Becker asks: if all of sociology is influenced by values, whos side are we on?

Traditionally functionalists and piostivists have taken the viewpoint of the powerful e.g the police/

Becker argues that we should take the side of the underdog e.g criminals.

Idnetifying with the powerless links to the methods interactionists favour e.g participant observation.

Gouldner adopts a marxist perspective by arguing it is not enough to describe the underdogs life, he believes that socioligsts should dedicate themselves to ending their oppression.

GOuldner believers that we should not be celbretating those in power but the underdog.

Funding and careers:

Most research is funded by the government/ businesses. The funder decides the direction of the research.

Funding bodies may prevent publication of the research if they find its findings unacceptable.

Socioligsts mat want to further their careers, this may influence their choice of topic

They may censor themselves out fear of harming their career.

Values, perspective and methods:

Gouldner believes that all research is inevitably influenced by values.

Values influence the topics the sociologists (of different perspectives) choose to study, the concepts they develop and the conclusion they reach.

Socioligsts values influence their choice of methods e.g becker wants to support the underdog and so he favours PO.

Objectivity and realism:

If all perspectives involve values, are their findings just a reflection of their values, not objective factors? 

Relativism argues that:

Different groups and individuals have different views as to what is true and these reflect their own values and interests.

There is no way of judging whether any view is truer than any other.

Relativism and postmodernism:

Postmodernists take a relativists view, there are no privileged accounts of society that have special access to the turht. 

From a relatvist standpoint, there is no single absolute or objective truth. What you believe to be true is true to you.

Any perspective claiming to have the truth is a meta narrative.