The quote above is fully supported by Positivists, and to some extent – Weber. The debate between scientific positivists and humanistic sociologists is in regards to whether sociology should be value free or value laden. To have a value is to have a belief. Where positivists see having values as enabling research to be subjective, unscientific and bias, other sociological perspectives see values as key in encouraging social change through theoretical based hypotheses, while realists identify that it is impossible to become value free because to have beliefs as a researcher is inevitable.
Positivist Comte argued that sociology should copy the objective methodology of the natural sciences therefore the data should be collected and analysed independent of values from sociologists. To demonstrate this value free approach positivists inferred that researchers must use the hypothetico-deductive model that consists of following a systematic procedure to falsify theories and arguments. Evidence to illustrate and support this depiction stems from Durkheim and his study of ‘suicide’. Durkheim objectively conveyed how operationalized variables of integration and regulation correlated with suicide. As a result Durkheim held the value that suicide was a social fact which was objectively analysed by coroners and it was through this procedure that concluded that suicide statistics was the most objective way of proving and possibly preventing the impact of society on suicide, in turn encouraging praxis. This shows that when using the structuralist’s approach (top down) Durkheim was not only able to establish cause and effect but also encourage social change and enlighten society on the issues of suicide, while being value free. Therefore suggesting that sociology can and should be value free as evidently Comte’s argument and Durkheim’s evidence have illustrated the strengths of objectivity to establish a scientific piece of data.
However ethnomethodologist’s and phenomenologists Atkinson, in sharp contrast disagrees with Durkheim’s study as he argues that although Durkheim may not have imposed his values, the coroners who label ‘suicide; certainly did. They imposed their own values in assuming why the individual committed suicide, when in actual fact it could have been a complete different reason. Atkinson’s theory was made evident when he correlated Durkheim’s study at a trans-national extent and found that coroners labelled the same suicide differently. Thus not only does this make Durkheim’s study ungeneralisable and unrepresentative but also bias to the social construction of coroners values who clearly and inevitably were influence by their values when diagnosing a suicide. Therefore sociology cannot be value free as the phenomena is not ‘out there’ to be discovered.
Similar to Atkinson, Weber’s social action theory also argues that sociologists must be value laden, as the choice of their topic to research is inevitably influenced by soft relativism, as the most operant practical knowledge is the most valuable. Weber identifies values are key, as they are needed for depicting hypotheses and making assumptions in order to represents a certain group of society. For example, the topics socioligsts find interesting reflect their personal values and desire to explore subjects that are important to us. For example, Plummer’s research into queer theory is linked with his own sexual orientation and Feminist writers also want to show how women have been excluded from ‘his-tory’, while a Marxist sociologist is influenced by their values to research the marginalised working class. Additionally Becker argued that sociological values should be committed to empowering the underdog – the people who labelled as deviants by doctors, police, teachers, psychiatrists Therefore sociology cannot and should not be value free as in order to produce the most valid and authentic theory, values are needed.
However the only phase sociology can and should be value free is in regards to the choice research methods and analyses of data. For example, methods should be free of bias and values, and be based on personal documents and case studies from a bottom up approach(?). Sociologists should also make clear whether they are in fact stating and value evaluating, in order to depict valid arguments. Sociologists must be intellectually honest and non partisan in order to avoid subjective and theoretical bias. However if they do make recommendations for action they should base it only on scientific values. Therefore sociology can and should be both value laden and value free, however value freedom should only emerge in relation to methodological issues.
In contrast, Realists, such as Gouldner are critical of Becker as the believe voicing the underdog ends up blaming relatively powerless ‘middle-dogs’ (such as the police) and should really focus on exposing the powerful – those who legitimate oppression and exploitation. However realist such as Philo and Miller do take on board the fact that most research is funded by organisations e.g. the government, that inhibit the choice of topic and therefore sociologist may not be able to research ‘top dogs’. For example, Towsend’s survey on the extent of relative poverty was so critical of the Conservative Government that its publication was limited to 20 copies and never discussed. As a result of this, Kuhn established that this type of careerism is paradigmatic biased. The values that are used by sociologist are only based on a paradigm of existing values, and are nothing new. For example, at school and university sociologist have been – arguably - taught a narrow of thinking and are often seen as labelling the bourgeoisie and conservative party as negative, and thus already have pre assumptive values. Therefore sociology cannot be value free as the moment an individual identifies them self as a socialist they carry with them pre existing values.
In support of Kuhn’s depiction that sociology is bias is The New Right Realist, who state that sociology values are only relative to a ‘left wing way of thinking’, and the teachers of the subject are the ‘enemy within’. This is because there values ignore the positive features of capitalism. For example, Marsland depicts that socioligsts focus solely on pathologies and therefore underestimates the high level of job satisfaction (which empirical research has supported). For example, social mobility and meritocracy is not a negative thing as illustrated by sociology, in fact it can encourage innovative ideas and a strong work ethic for students to go on and have, and in turn prosper at their field of work. Therefore sociology cannot be value laden however the values they transmit should not be bias towards negatively portraying inequality and in fact should have open values that can encourage positive cognitive mind sets for succession.
However both Classical and Neo Marxist disagree with The New right arguing that regardless of whether or not sociology encourages values of hard work, these values are only applicable to middle class students, not working class, who are still alienated and oppressed regardless of the type of work they undergo. This is because there is a ‘myth of meritocracy’ depicted. Therefore Althusser infers that sociology should encourage the value of uncovering how the ruling class ideologically control us, e.g. how the law and media serves to legitimate capitalism and disguise ruling class crime. As the values of sociology should be to enlighten, and create the potential for revolutionary class-consciousness.
Radical feminist who agree that sociology should expose the workings of an oppressive ideological system supports the Marxist depiction, however the problem specific to radical feminists is the concept of patriarchy. Radical feminist convey how there values are needed for sociologist, as they are not harmful to anyone but only beneficial to society. For example, feminism has fought no wars, has killed no opponents and has practised no cruelties. It’s battles and values have been heard through education and voting for better working environments, for safety on the streets and for rape crisis centres. Thus feminism values are not as nearly as destructive as any other theories aforementioned but are simply at the cost of enlightening society. Evidently, studies such as Ann Oakley on ‘maternity becoming a mother’ has encouraged a praxis of policies that have enables women to become more equal. Therefore sociologists should be value laden and the values they have should be encouraged by feminism.
Feminist standpoint epistemology furthers this argument by highlighting the male stream values that have been predominantly used to produce data that is gender bias and unrepresentative. This is because the lack of females in sample quotas and male researchers who conduct unethical surveys are faced with invalid date that not only exploit women (rape of the researcher) but also convey a male gazed perspective of women’s experience. Thus Feminist stand point epistemologists’ favour in-depth interviews, the results of which verbatim transcribed and collaboratively themed. For example, Dobash and Dobash who conducted collaborative interviews and looked for themes in the transcriptions. Although ethical values are important to uphold in conducting Sociological research, Feminist believe that sociology can and should be value laden however the socioligsts should take caution to not impose their values on female participants
Realists also identify the ethical considerations to take into account when conducting methodological research, as depending on the researchers value they may intentionally want to cause harm in order to get the data they want e.g. Milgram’s ‘Obedience Experiment’ – this is referred to as situational ethics. The notion that socialists obtain data though deception, failing to give informed consent nor reminding participants that they have the right to withdraw is essentially encouraging participants to suffer form psychological or physical harm. Arguably, some sociological research has been proven to in fact enlighten society e.g. Venkatesh – Gang leader for a day, and Rosenthal and Jacobson’s ‘Pygmalion in the Class room’. However, this guilty knowledge is what sociologists’ should take into consideration within their values, as although ‘to make an omelette you have to crack a few eggs’ it is important not to harm society, as there main aim is to enlighten and fix social problems, not to cause them.
Conversely, Postmodernists completely critic the role of values in sociology. Lyotard, Baudrillard and Bauman all claim that sociology is underpinned by values about the nature of society. For postmodernists all modernist theories e.g. Functionalist, Marxist, interactionism & feminist variants are all failed metanarratives, which is no more or less superior to any other way of thinking. The solution is regardless of the Harthorne effect or Impressions managements, to merely let the voiceless’ voice be verbatimly transcribed (word for word) with no analysis form researchers, all our ‘truths’ are relative and there is no one-truth for all time. Foucault depicted that the claim to be value free is in fact having a value in its self, which cannot be persistent. What sociologist consider as ‘values’ are not beliefs, but are all hegemonic discourses that are not needed as they are not applicable to a postmodern society of today.