A2 Sociology: Theory and Methods

Sociology and Value Freedom

Auguste Comte and early positivist sociology

Auguste Comte who founded positivist sociology believed that sociology

should be a science of society. He believed that sociology should be
prescriptive, that is, the purpose of sociology was to propose
remedies for social and moral problems, i.e. to fix society if it
experienced social problems. This approach influenced the early
poverty studies of Booth and Rowntree which aimed not only to
describe the extent of poverty in the East End of London and York
respectively but also to propose remedies to get rid of poverty forever.

In Comte’s view, scientific sociology would one day reveal the ideal
society to live in. He believed that sociologists would be able to say
objectively and with scientific certainty what was really best for society —
they would be able to prescribe how things ought to be. In fact,
Comte regarded sociology as the ‘queen of the sciences’ and saw
sociologists as latter-day priests of a new scientific religion of truth.

Marx too saw sociology as a science. He claimed that the purpose of his
analysis of capitalism was to scientifically reveal to the working-class
the inequality and exploitation that underpinned this economic system.
This would lead the working-class to overthrow capitalism and to bring
about the birth of communist society. Marx therefore also saw
scientific sociology as helping to ‘deliver’ a better society.

The idea of value freedom - objectivity through

neutrality

However, in the early 20th century, modern positivist sociologists decided

that it was not the job of sociologists to fix society. Instead it was
argued that the role of sociology was to document social processes and
problems in an objective fashion. It was the role of the social-policy
makers (e.g. politicians and civil servants) to act upon sociological
findings.

Positivists believed that sociologists should not be concerned with the

political and moral implications of what they discovered and that

1
they should not be concerned with trying to change society for the
better. Positivists, therefore, stressed ‘objectivity through neutrality’
– it was argued that sociologists should be the disinterested and
trustworthy pursuers of truth, and that consequently, sociologists
should aim only to see facts as they are - not as they may wish to
see them. In this sense, sociologists aimed to be value free, i.e. to not
let their own personal prejudices, tastes and beliefs influence
their research methods or findings. They saw their job as simply to
establish the truth about people’s behaviour, not to praise or condemn
it. The idea that sociology should be value free became particularly
popular with functionalist sociologists in the USA who in the post-war
period were employed heavily by the State to advise the US army and
big business to advise them how to get the best out of their workers.

Social science and the military – a case study of objective

positivist sociology in action
In 2006, the US military developed a programme known as the Human
Terrain System (HTS) to study social groups in Iraq and Afghanistan.
HTS depends heavily on social anthropologists, with their expertise in
the study of non-western societies. In the words of Steve Fondacaro, the
colonel overseeing HTS, ‘You have social scientists to understand the deep
complexity of the problems on the ground and the military personnel who
then take that information and apply it to the military decision- making
process’. According to the recruitment advert, winning the trust of the
population ‘is at the heart of the struggle between coalition forces and the
insurgents’. The anthropologist David Kilcullen, an architect of the
strategy, calls it ‘armed social work’. In 2007 the US government
authorised a $40 million expansion of HIS to assign teams of social
scientists to each of the 26 US combat brigades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The cost is about $400,000 annually for each social scientist, including the
cost of kidnap insurance.

HTS has met with opposition. Some anthropologists say it exploits social
science for political gain. One, Roberto Gonzalez, accuses the military of
trying to ‘weaponise’ anthropology, and believes that HTS units are
likely to operate ‘as full-blown counter-insurgency (i.e. anti-
terrorism) teams’.

The critique of value freedom

2
Max Weber rejected the notion of value-freedom. He argued that
scientists and sociologists are also human beings and citizens and they
must not dodge the moral and political issues their work raises by
hiding behind words such as ‘objectivity’ or ‘value freedom’. They must
take moral responsibility for the harm their research may do. For
example, Albert Einstein’s theories in physics helped make the atomic
bomb possible yet subsequently, Einstein voiced his opposition to nuclear
weapons.

Alvin Gouldner (1975) argues that by the 1950s, American positivist

sociologists had become mere ‘spiritless technicians’. Sociologists were
no longer ‘problem makers’ who defined their own research problems.
Instead they had become ‘problem takers’ who hired themselves out to
other organisations such as government, business and the military, to
take on and solve their problems for them.

Gouldner argues that, by leaving their own values behind them,

sociologists were making a ‘gentleman’s promise’ that they would
not rock the boat by criticising or questioning their paymasters.
Because sociologists were simply hired hands, they saw their own
values as irrelevant to their work. This is exactly the attitude that
Weber was criticising when he said that sociologists must take moral
responsibility for the effects of their work.

Weber’s perspective on value-freedom has led to three broad criticisms

of this concept:

(1) Values influence sociologists’ choice of research

topic.
It is argued by some sociologists that what gets studied by sociologists
depends upon those with power making value judgements about
what is interesting and worthwhile. Gomm notes that most funding for
sociological research comes from the government and big
business. Only a small proportion of research is funded by charitable
institutions such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Sutton Trust or
the Runnymede Foundation.

This may mean that sociological research only focuses on issues

that governments and business see as important. For example,
corporate business has funded an enormous amount of research in the
USA aimed at improving worker productivity (e.g. the Hawthorne
experiment conducted by E. Mayo). Moreover powerful groups have
the power to resist sociological research. It is a fact that there have

3
been numerous studies of the poor and the working class but very few
studies of the wealthy or powerful institutions such as the public
schools.

State funding of sociological research has often been aimed at

protecting Western interests and values as seen in the example of
Project Camelot in which the US government attempted to recruit
sociologists in order to undermine Third World governments and the HTS
programme mentioned above. Gomm therefore suggests that the
values of those who employ sociologists are very important in the
choice of research topic. Sociological research may be presented as
objective and neutral but as Gomm points out value freedom depends
upon who controls the values.

However, in criticism of Gomm, it does not necessarily follow that because

values influence the choice of research that the research itself will not be
objective. For example, the Sociology department of Leicester
University was given £100,000 by the government to investigate football
hooliganism. Leicester’s findings based upon objective research were very
critical of government policies aimed at solving this problem. In other
words, they were not influenced by the fact that the government
had paid for the research.

However, there have been cases where the funding organisation has
prevented publication of the research because its findings proved
unacceptable. In the case of the Black Report (1980) into class
inequalities in health, the Conservative government arranged for its
release over a bank holiday weekend, allegedly in the hope of reducing
the publicity it would receive — because the report’s findings ran counter
to government views.

In addition to the influence of those who fund the research, we should

also consider the sociologist’s own personal values deriving from
their background, upbringing and so on. Sociologists may also
wish to further their careers and reputations, and this may influence
their choice of topic (for example, choosing something that is in fashion),
their research questions and methods and how they interpret their
findings. Some may censor themselves for fear that being too
outspoken will harm their career prospects or even cost them their
job. Sociologists in university departments are also likely to be
under pressure to publish research, regardless of its quality or
usefulness.

4
 (2) Sociology lacks the means or methods to avoid
making subjective judgements.

The natural scientist has no problem in divorcing emotion from

objectivity. This is normally achieved through the experiment. However in
sociology, experiments are rarely possible.

Some sociologists, notably Derek Phillips have argued data collection

is itself a social process so we can expect bias and invalidity to
arise out of the effects of interaction with research subjects. This
can be illustrated in a number of ways.

 Firstly, questionnaires and structured interviews often suffer from

the imposition problem – this means that the sociologist has
already decided which of the experiences of the subjects of
the research are important by designing particular questions
and by only giving them a limited choice of response boxes
to tick. The sociologist therefore ends up imposing their
values on the research subjects.

 Secondly, those sociologists who use non-random sampling

techniques such as quota sampling often end up choosing only
those who look as though they might cooperate with the
research.

 Thirdly, sociologists who use participant observation often

end up identifying with the group they are studying. They
may ‘go native’ and find that their objectivity is undermined by
friendship. When writing up their research, they may
unconsciously select only that data that shows the group in a
positive light. Venkatesh was probably guilty of all these biases –
his values were partly shaped by the fact that he liked the
people he was supposedly objectively observing.

 Similarly, there is a link between the kinds of methods

sociologists prefer and their value-stance. For example,
interpretivists’ preference for qualitative methods fits with their
desire to empathise with the underdog, since such methods give
them access to the actor’s meanings and worldview. Likewise,
the positivist tendency to take the side of the ‘establishment’

5
 and see things from the viewpoint of those in authority fits well with
their uncritical acceptance of official statistics produced by
government departments. Both interactionists and
functionalists can be accused of selecting methods that
produce facts that reflect their values and outlook.

(3) The very nature of sociology means that it is

value-laden.

This is the most important critique. It states that sociology is socially

organised knowledge characterised by collective social attitudes,
moral codes, values, prejudices and bias. As a result it cannot avoid
values - it is composed of them because sociologists are members
of society and therefore cannot escape the influence of its culture
and its institutions. Gouldner argues that value-free sociology is a
myth because it is impossible to separate sociologists from what they
observe - knowledge does not exist outside of people. It is a social
product, the result of human actions and values.

Gomm too argues that sociology is a social activity carried out by

real people in a world characterised by conflicts of interest
between different social groups. Any research therefore must
inevitably take one side or the other whether the researcher
admits this or not. Sociological research, according to Gomm, reflects
ideological beliefs. This can be illustrated in three ways;

(a) Some sociologists - functionalists, sub-culturalists and

cultural deprivationists - believe that society is characterised
by a consensus on values. These sociologists tend not to
engage in social dissent or criticism - rather they support the
status quo and thus the values of the establishment.

Examples of such sociological ideas would include -

‘Poverty is the fault of the individual or the culture’ –

sociologists who argue this such as the New Right rarely consider
that poverty might be the fault of the unequal organisation of
society or the wealthy.

‘Crime is a working class phenomenon’ – sociologists who

argue this rarely look at corporate or ruling-class crime.

6
 ‘Working class culture is inferior to middle class culture’ –
sociologists who argue this such as Murray rarely consider the
idea that cultures are different rather than inferior/superior.

(b) According to Gouldner, all researchers possess ‘domain

assumptions’ - a worldview which is the result of socialization
into a particular paradigm or culture. As a result most
sociology reflects Western, capitalist and patriarchal
values. For example, some American sociologists, notably
Rostow, have called communism a ‘disease’. Other
sociologists, particularly Parsons, have been accused of being
sexist and patriarchal because they believe there are distinct
gender roles within the family and that only the male should
perform the instrumental breadwinner role and only the female
should perform the nurturing expressive role.

(c) Gomm suggests that by presenting facts as ‘truth’

sociologists are able to deny responsibility for the way in
which their research is used by policy makers. For example,
compensatory education was introduced into UK schools in the
1960s because sociologists convinced politicians that working-
class culture was inferior and required a helping hand in the form
of extra resources. However, Gomm points out that this policy
distracted from other possible causes of working-class
educational underachievement such as the role of schools and
teachers or the economic advantages enjoyed by the middle-
classes or private schooling. Gomm suggests that the most
important aspect of sociological research is what is NOT
investigated.

For example, a sociological study of homelessness may

investigate the social background of the homeless but may
ignore the workings of the property market which may be
responsible for the housing shortage. Such a study will lead to
only politically safe conclusions which blame the victims.
Gomm suggests such sociological research is ideological
because it helps maintain inequality.

Critical politicised sociology

7
 Some sociologists have rejected the concept of value freedom
because they suggest that it is undesirable to pretend to be
value free. This theme has been taken up by critical sociologists
who feel that they must take political sides. Many Marxists feel
they should take the side of the working class. Feminists obviously
take the side of women whilst many interactionist studies take
the side of the deviant or the group that has been labelled by
the police, the courts, the media etc.

Howard Becker, an interactionist, argues that instead of seeing

things from the perspective of the powerful, sociologists should
adopt a compassionate stance and take the side of the
underdogs — the criminals, mental patients and other powerless
groups. This is partly because less is known about these groups and
their story needs to be told in order to redress the balance. By
identifying with the underdog and giving them a voice, we can
reveal a previously hidden side of social reality.

For example, by empathising with the mental patient, we can show

the hidden rationality of their behaviour — behaviour that the
psychiatrist thinks of as irrational. In fact, as the interactionist
Erving Goffman (1968) argues, to describe the situation of the
mental patient faithfully, we have to take their side. We have to be
biased in favour of the patient and against the psychiatrist.

This emphasis on identifying and empathising with the powerless

has clear links to the kinds of research methods favoured by
interactionists. They have a strong preference for qualitative
methods such as participant observation, which they see as
revealing the meanings held by these ‘outsiders’.

However, Gouldner criticises Becker for taking a romantic and

sentimental approach to disadvantaged groups. He accuses
Becker of being concerned only with those who are ‘on their
backs’ — the misunderstood, negatively labelled and exotic
specimens of deviant behaviour that interactionists tend to
focus on.

All these critical perspectives acknowledge that values do and

should enter sociological research. They argue that sociology
should not and cannot be morally neutral or indifferent.
Rather sociology is value-laden. Moreover sociology should be

8
 politically prescriptive - it should suggest ways forward in
order to create a better society.

Such ideas do not necessarily mean that such research is going to

be biased and therefore unreliable and invalid. In the natural
sciences, doctors and scientists may be motivated by a sense of
social justice and emotional commitment to the health of their
patients but this does not mean that they are prevented from
conducting an objective investigation into the causes of ill health.

Likewise good sociology rests on the ability of sociologists to

demonstrate the truth of their ideas empirically. There is, of
course, the danger that data may be interpreted from certain value
positions – that sociologists may be selective and see only what
they want to see. However good critical sociology will put aside
its biases and stress the need for reliability, validity and
representativeness first and foremost.