Outline and explain two reasons why committed sociologists argue that sociology cannot be value
free (10)
One reason why sociologists believe sociology cannot be value free is because sociologists are now
answerable to ‘paymasters’. In the 1950s, sociologists were now hiring themselves out to solve the
problems of governments, businesses and other private organisations. Gouldner states this made it
impossible for sociology to be value free as either the sociologists or pay masters values are bound
to be reflected in their work. For example, sociologists are unlikely to criticise their pay masters to
avoid ‘rocking the boat’ so their research direction is often dictated by the funding bodies. As a
result the researcher is likely to embody their paymasters values and interests meaning the research
is not value-free. This is also reinforced by the idea sociologists want to further their career and so
do not want to risk having a damaged reputation from going against the government for example.
For Gouldner, all research is inevitably influenced by values, whether of the sociologist or the
funding body paying for research. However, criticisms come from positivists who argue sociology can
and should be value free. Comte and Durkheim argue the creation of a better society is not about
values but about the use of scientific and objective methods to study society and uncover casual
patterns.
Another reason comes from Becker who argues sociology cannot be value free as this results in
certain groups in society being left ‘voiceless’. Becker argues values are always present in sociology,
however criticises positivists for always taking the side of the powerful such as police and
governments. Becker argues we need to see things from the perspective of the underdog, like
criminals, mental patients and other powerless groups. This will help to give them a voice and reveal
the hidden side of society. For example, this is reflected in the types of research such as participant
observations, like that of Goffman which was used to study patients in mental hospitals. Therefore,
for Becker sociology always has values and this is important to be able to redress the balance of
society by gaining knowledge on the underdogs. However, this view is criticised by Gouldner who
says it is too romantic. He adopts a Marxist perspective and says we should take the side of those
actually fighting back which could lead to ending oppression and being able to challenge the
powerful.
Outline and explain two reasons why positivists believe sociology should be studied as a science
(10)
One reason positivists believe we should study sociology as a science is because we can use reliable
methods by using quantitative data. Positivists use quantitative data such as experiments,
questionnaires and official statistics to gain objective, scientific facts about human behaviour. The
more control over variables the more reliable the method is allowing for the creation of laws to
improve society. For example, Durkheim used quantitative official statistics to show sociology should
be studied as a science by explaining the most complex, individual act which is suicide using
quantitative, detached method. Durkheim concluded that different levels of integration and
regulation produced different rates of suicide which he claimed was a ‘real scientific law’. Therefore,
showing how positivists believe scientific methods can be used to study highly individual and
complex actions within society. This can then be used to predict future events and guide social
policy. However, a criticism of this comes from interpretivists. Interpretivists favour qualitative
methods as they believe that is the only way to gain a deep understanding into the actors point of
free (10)
One reason why sociologists believe sociology cannot be value free is because sociologists are now
answerable to ‘paymasters’. In the 1950s, sociologists were now hiring themselves out to solve the
problems of governments, businesses and other private organisations. Gouldner states this made it
impossible for sociology to be value free as either the sociologists or pay masters values are bound
to be reflected in their work. For example, sociologists are unlikely to criticise their pay masters to
avoid ‘rocking the boat’ so their research direction is often dictated by the funding bodies. As a
result the researcher is likely to embody their paymasters values and interests meaning the research
is not value-free. This is also reinforced by the idea sociologists want to further their career and so
do not want to risk having a damaged reputation from going against the government for example.
For Gouldner, all research is inevitably influenced by values, whether of the sociologist or the
funding body paying for research. However, criticisms come from positivists who argue sociology can
and should be value free. Comte and Durkheim argue the creation of a better society is not about
values but about the use of scientific and objective methods to study society and uncover casual
patterns.
Another reason comes from Becker who argues sociology cannot be value free as this results in
certain groups in society being left ‘voiceless’. Becker argues values are always present in sociology,
however criticises positivists for always taking the side of the powerful such as police and
governments. Becker argues we need to see things from the perspective of the underdog, like
criminals, mental patients and other powerless groups. This will help to give them a voice and reveal
the hidden side of society. For example, this is reflected in the types of research such as participant
observations, like that of Goffman which was used to study patients in mental hospitals. Therefore,
for Becker sociology always has values and this is important to be able to redress the balance of
society by gaining knowledge on the underdogs. However, this view is criticised by Gouldner who
says it is too romantic. He adopts a Marxist perspective and says we should take the side of those
actually fighting back which could lead to ending oppression and being able to challenge the
powerful.
Outline and explain two reasons why positivists believe sociology should be studied as a science
(10)
One reason positivists believe we should study sociology as a science is because we can use reliable
methods by using quantitative data. Positivists use quantitative data such as experiments,
questionnaires and official statistics to gain objective, scientific facts about human behaviour. The
more control over variables the more reliable the method is allowing for the creation of laws to
improve society. For example, Durkheim used quantitative official statistics to show sociology should
be studied as a science by explaining the most complex, individual act which is suicide using
quantitative, detached method. Durkheim concluded that different levels of integration and
regulation produced different rates of suicide which he claimed was a ‘real scientific law’. Therefore,
showing how positivists believe scientific methods can be used to study highly individual and
complex actions within society. This can then be used to predict future events and guide social
policy. However, a criticism of this comes from interpretivists. Interpretivists favour qualitative
methods as they believe that is the only way to gain a deep understanding into the actors point of
