2.

(a) Science, Scientific Method and Critique

Science is any branch of study which employs scientific method. So it’s not the subject matter but the
method of study which determines whether a subject is science or not.

There are many ways through which there can be knowledge of anything. One can have
the knowledge of monsoon from an expert on meteorology. On the other hand, the same monsoon can
be known through the prediction of the elder of a village community. Through religious scriptures, one
can have the knowledge of God. The socialization of an individual determines his view or knowledge
about the society around him. So we can have know about the phenomena around us employing
different kind of methods like consulting elders, consulting some religious books, consulting experts or
even through own intuition. Similarly, Scientific method is a method to gain knowledge about
phenomena around us but this method is distinct from all other methods in that it employs a pre-
determined logic and rationality based direct approach towards study. Scientific method is based on
direct and systematic empirical observation and verification of phenomena. It is this approach which
distinguishes it from other methods of observation.

Critique: The most direct criticism is that we cannot have knowledge of each and
everything from direct observations. For Example, How much does a mother loves her child can hardly
be observed. So, Most of the faith-based phenomena can be taken out of the purview of Scientific
Method. Similarly it is hardly debated whether Society can be observed just like a physical body and
hence whether Scientific Method can be employed in the study of society or not?

There is one more criticism which is highly popular in philosophical debates. It doubts the
validity of generalization about a phenomenon after observing a few events, as done in Scientific
Method.
2(b). Major Theoretical Strands of Research Methodology

Mainly, there are three theoretical patterns followed by sociological research.

(1)Scientific Sociology/ Positivism

(2)Critical Sociology

(3)Interpretive Sociology

Positivism and It’s Critique/ Scientific sociology or Positivism

Scientific sociology or Positivism considers social phenomena as concrete just like physical things.
According to it, Social Phenomena can be described by fixed rules and laws. It assumes that Social reality
is ‘’out there’’ and it is the duty of a sociologist to observe that reality and unravel the rules which
dictate it. Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim are the pioneers of this paradigm. All of
these believe that there can be precision in Sociology just like natural sciences have.

Various eminent sociologists like Max Weber and Karl Marx don’t believe in the ideal of
objectivity of Scientific Sociology. It is highly criticized on following grounds.

(a) There is no fixed social reality and rules as envisaged by Scientific sociology. Social reality is
highly dynamic and changes every moment.
(b) Study of society essentially involves study of human beings who make a society. Human beings
are self-conscious beings as opposed to physical things. So sociology can never be equalized
with natural sciences.
(c) In case of Sociology, the studied phenomena itself knows that it is being studied. This knowledge
often tempts it to change its course of action and thereby phenomena itself during the study.
This is known as Hawthorne Effect.
(d) The researcher himself is a part of researches subject matter, the society, in the case of
sociology. It his highly probable that different researchers have different conclusions regarding
the same phenomenon.

Owing to these, it can be said that describing social reality in terms of fixed laws can amount to turning a
blind eye to the reality itself.
Critical Sociology

Critical Sociology focuses on doing research as a tool to change the society. It is more of an activist
sociology than just sociology. It discards the ideal of objectivity and encourages the researcher to be a
part of research itself. Marxist sociologists are often seen to be doing critical sociology.

While Scientific sociology tends to find out the answer to the question, “How does society
work?” , it mainly focuses how it can be changed. This approach is criticized on the ground that in its
pursuit of change it abandons the objective study and thus becomes merely a grand philosophizing.

Interpretive Sociology

Interpretive Sociology focuses on study of the meanings i.e. the rational motivations that people attach
to their social actions. Max Weber is seen as the pioneer of this field of sociology. Interpretive
Sociologists believe that Society has a dual nature. It does have some objective reality as Positivists
believe but it also has a subjective nature attached to it. It is the people who by interacting with a
rational motivation in mind create the social reality. A sociologist not only studies the objective
phenomenon of social action of individuals but must also have to study the motivations behind it.
Necessarily, these motivations cannot be observed just like any physical phenomenon as they are the
personal psychological facts in minds of the individuals, they must be interpreted by the researcher. It is
this special kind of understanding by interpretation, named as Verstehen by Max Weber, which make
sociology different from natural sciences. A Sociologist should interpret the values and motivations of
the subject being but must take utmost care that he does not impose his own values upon the research.
This makes the work of a sociologist highly difficult.

Interpretive Sociology is criticized on the ground that it is not possible for a

[Objectivity means personal neutrality in conducting a research]

The fact-value debate is one of the greatest debates in Sociology. The debate centers around one
question. “Can a sociologist study the social phenomena without his values and beliefs affecting his
findings?” Sociology is a unique science in that the researcher himself is a part of the research. The facts
he is studying are also the subject matter of his values and belief. For Example, A researcher studying
the inequality in society himself is a part of the unequal society. It is very difficult for him to view the
inequality in society in a bias-free manner which, according to most, is essential for sociology to be
termed as science. This peculiarity of Sociology is fatal for Scientific Sociology. Scientific sociology
believes that society is made up of social facts which are present in society as objectively as any physical
object out there. It is very hard for a sociologist to filter out his beliefs, values and ideologies and treat
social reality as hard facts. The Objectivity is thus difficult to maintain. Interpretive Sociology tries to
reconcile subjectivity found in social research to the objectivity needed. Just like Max Weber said, “For
Sociology, the object of cognition is the subjective meaning-complex of human action.” Interpretive
sociology terms that the social action or social reality is essentially made up of the values of social actors
or human beings. A sociologist while researching must interpret the values and beliefs of the subject
beings but wary of his own beliefs and values. He must study the values but be value-free in his
approach of the study. However this diktat is often termed to be impractical by most of the critics. They
point out that while doing research the values of an individual will necessarily affect the research and it
can never be bias-free.

However, still, there are many techniques employed by sociologists to maintain

Firstly, they can list most of their own beliefs while presenting an study. But it is not very easy to zero on
one’s own beliefs. Had this been easy, there would have been the least effect on research in the first
place.

Secondly, there can be Replication i.e repetition of the study by the different individual and thereafter
comparison of outcomes. But it very costly and time consuming and may not even be possible for some
research methods like Participant Observation.