How is the world understood?  How is reality gauged? How is knowledge gained? Over the past three hundred years since the Enlightenment, the ‘scientific method’ has emerged as the predominant, universally accepted approach to acquiring knowledge. As against religious faith, magic and superstition, the scientific method is a way of arriving at an empirical, impartial and reliable representation of the world.

Science, scientific method and critique

The relationship between science and sociology has always been debated since the beginning of the discipline and continues even up to now. The problem of defining science, sociology being a science or not and use of scientific methodology in sociology as some of the issues of critique by the intellectuals particularly in the 19^th century after the emergence of sociology as distinct discipline. Logically all these issues do influence the scope of sociology.

Understanding Science

As has been discussed earlier[1], scientific revolution formed an integral and indispensable component of the social changes occurring medieval Europe. This revolution manifested in the form of not only in various inventions and discoveries but more widely and deeply in terms of ideology, perspectives and also in particular type of attitude referred to as, modernity.  Science appeared to be capable of producing objective knowledge that could be used to solve human problems and increase human productive capacity in an unprecedented way. Science started to enjoy a higher reputation than ever before. The conception of science was highly influenced by the developments in the natural sciences. Copernican revolution, work of physicists and mathematicians like Galileo Galilee (1564-1642), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and subsequently, Isaac Newton revolutionized science. It brought to the forefront the experimental method. These methods came to be regarded as the most accurate, the most objective and were considered scientific. With the emergence of the discipline of sociology, the use of these ‘scientific method’ in studying society was recommended. Dissection of the human body helped people gain a better upstanding of it’s working. This led to a lot of rethinking. The human organism came to be viewed in terms of interrelated parts and interconnected systems-this had its impact on the social thought of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim to name a few.

Therefore initially the conception of science was understood in terms of only natural sciences. In sociology positivists rested their basic premises, method and perspectives drawing inspiration from this conception of science. The empiricism, determinism and using methods of natural sciences became imperative for anything to be considered scientific and modern. This view understands the term science as only that body of knowledge conforming to the features of natural sciences.

Modern theorists in general oppose this view, argue that any body of knowledge can be scientific if it is based on a rational methodology, perspectives and carries out systematic and logical study of its subject matter. Therefore, a more realist view of science has emerged, which acknowledges that the study of unobservable phenomenon can also be done scientifically and Science is defined as investigation through certain specific methods. In a scientific study clear vision of the problem to be studied in needed. The observer is required to have quality of impartial and unbiased recording of facts. He should have capacity to properly record and analyze the data collected for the study. The greatest and most important characteristic of a scientific study however is that its results can be verified. On the basis of conclusions some safe predictions can also be made in a scientific study. As a body of knowledge, science is ever changing. The facts one discovered can also be modified to a large extent. According to Giddings, “Science is nothing more or less than the getting of facts and trying to understand them, and what science does for us nothing more nor less than helping us to face facts.”

Sociology and Science

Sociologists have adopted varying views on the relationship between sociology and science. Many of the sociologists of the 19th and 20th centuries treated it as similar to natural science. Natural sciences such as physics and chemistry are those branches of knowledge where experimentation is possible and they can arrive at precise laws.

According to Comte, society is created by natural laws, which could be explained, just like the natural sciences. Besides, since society is an objective reality, it can be studied by applying the scientific methods of observation, experimentation and comparison. Another 19th century sociologist, Herbert Spencer, treated sociology from the evolutionary viewpoint, that is, he was heavily indebted to the evolutionary theory of biology, a natural science.

A new approach was adopted by Emile Durkheim who clearly defined the field of sociology. Society cannot be examined as individual entities, but as collectivities and their interactions. Social collectivity is a social fact, social facts must be regarded as things, and they should be studied objectively just as in natural sciences. Moreover, Durkheim’s study of society is based on statistical data, and from them he arrived at some sociological generalizations.

Impressed by Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, a 20th century anthropologist freely advocated a natural science of society, having its own laws and explanations. It is also to be observed here that all the above thinkers adopted the evolutionary and organic analyses and concepts derived from biology.

Differing with the above thinkers, Max Weber has contended that there cannot be an objective science of society since social action must be understood in terms of the meaning man gives to it. In other words, value judgments are inevitable in sociology and we can never have a completely objective science of sociology.

In the same manner the 19th century sociologist of German, George Simmel has argued that a society is essentially a psychic interaction between human beings both as individuals and groups. Logically, sociologists should deal with the processes of happenings, but not with substances just like natural sciences. The present view of sociologists stands like this:

The controversy

Despite some similarities between sociology and sciences par excellence like physics and chemistry, whether sociology is a science or not is still a moot point. Classical theorists believe that attributes of natural sciences (physics and chemistry) should be the criteria for deciding whether a branch of knowledge is a science or not.

As, the term science has been understood from two viewpoints and the question whether sociology is a science or not has to be looked from these two perspectives.

There is basic Difference between natural Sciences and social sciences. The basic unit in the subject matter of sociology is human being and his behaviour is unpredictable unlike the basic units of positive sciences and experimentation under controlled conditions is impossible to arrive at precise laws just as in physics and chemistry, or even to the same extent as in natural sciences like biology, geology and meteorology.

Arguments in favour of sociology as a science

Firstly, sociology is as much rational as the other sciences are. A Sociologist is bound to be methodological in his approach and his questionnaires must be very clear, precise and the questions specific and not ambiguous.

The element of irrationality is to be found in other sciences too. Newton accepted either as a fact although it was abandoned later, because it was this hypothesis that enabled him to provide a pattern to the explanations that he gave to mass and motion.

Secondly, to say that other sciences deal with hard facts ruling out the role of preconceptions and biases is also a wrong view. This contention is based on the premise that a fact like electricity is objective, but a family bond is subjective. This is a narrow approach: for, every idea of man is subjective as it emanates from a person and belongs to him. As a matter of fact when a geologist approaches his subject matter of fact when a geologist approaches his subject matter, he relies on his experience, acumen and knowledge to get the best results. The human part of the geologist is definitely a subjective phenomenon.

Thirdly, sociologists need not be apologetic about value judgments. No value judgment is absolutely personal. Say, the statement that alcoholism is a curse is a scientific judgment because it is based on hard facts collected by sociologists. It is confirmed by further surveys. Such value judgments, therefore, are equivalent to the hypotheses in other sciences.

Fourthly, it is generally argued that sociology cannot attain a true scientific status as it studies only the unique happenings of society. This is an unfair argument since the so-called superior sciences, too, are concerned with the unique happenings like the ice Age in geology, the birth of the universe in astro-physics, and the theory of evolution in biology.

Fifthly, it is argued that sociology cannot even master an understanding of billions of social acts occurring every day. But the very fact, that the world is not a bedlam or a total chaos, is a sufficient proof that sociology has the opportunity to play the role of science. Sociologists do study and find out reasonable approximations of order that are present in the billions of social acts that occur every day. Data collected by the sociologists can to a considerable extent be used for future predictions. Data can be verified, analyzed and tested under different situations and circumstances.

Sixthly, In the study of sociology significance of relationship between cause and effect is fully well realized and appreciated. One knows that social disorganization or stratification can result in many problems in social, economic and political fields as well as in institutions and organisations.     Since many social problems are same all over the world, e.g., poverty, crimes, unemployment, etc., and vary only in degree and not in kind, these need uniform solution.

Lastly, much of what has been systematized in social sciences can be put into practice and has not merely remained in theory.

Limitations of sociology

But there is another school of thought, which strongly believes that Sociology cannot find a place in the family of pure sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. Their main line of argument is that:

• Since social conditions and social changes are unavoidable and are always occurring, therefore, results of investigation are bound to vary and these cannot be generalized, as is the case with pure sciences.
• The objects of pure sciences namely plants or animals can be studied without limitations. But sociologist studies human beings who supply information with many limitations are reservations. Accordingly conclusions drawn by a sociologist cannot be unbiased or impartial.
• A scientist dealing with pure sciences have the privilege of working in a laboratory situation where he can control the situations to his liking. On the other hand a Sociologist deals with human beings to whom he cannot control to his choice or liking. Similarly, social situations and conditions too are not within his control. Thus the laboratory of sociologist is not under controlled situation.
• While dealing with his objects like animals and plants, personal prejudices and viewpoints of scientist do not really matter much. On the other hand personal opinions, prejudices, view points, etc., of sociologist, while dealing with human beings, not only count a lot but can materially influence course and conclusions of the study.
• Predictions can be made in the case of pure sciences, but it is usually difficult for a sociologist to make safe predictions because social conditions are influenced even by international happenings, which might be beyond the predictions of a sociologist on the one hand and by a very insignificant event on the other while at home.
• Whereas the objects of experiments in natural sciences can be safely isolated from the environments around, in the case of social sciences, social problems cannot be studied in isolation and must be influenced by many factors.

Thus it will be observed that Sociology has certain elements of applied sciences and also some elements of pure sciences exist in it as well. It can, therefore, be said that Sociology is neither a perfect pure nor an applied science. It is in between the two or what can be said is that is half way between pure and the applied sciences. It has some characteristics of pure or basic sciences and some of the social sciences.

Therefore it can conveniently be said that sociology is a social science, which deals with systematic study of social phenomenon in a society.

         Try this Question Short Note: “Sociology as a science”

                        Discuss whether sociology is a science or not.

Scientific method

Auguste Comte, regarded as the father of modern sociology, visualized a new form of society based on the knowledge drawn from the science of sociology. He had a vision of the complete moral transformation of mankind and even portrayed in detail a new religion of humanity to be guided by a priesthood having special scientific knowledge of man and his nature on the basis of scientific methods.

‘Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge or correcting and integrating previous knowledge’

The sociologist has a commitment to the use of the scientific method in studying society. As the tern ‘science’ has been understood differently, so is the term ‘scientific method’. In the initial years only the methods of natural sciences were considered scientific. With time social science has also developed a methodology of its own, which is different from natural science but is considered scientific. Quantitative and qualitative methods[2] have been developed by various thinkers.

Social scientists tried to apply the techniques of the natural sciences for the study of human psyche and society. But it was soon found that social reality is very different, and it is not possible to apply the classical scientific method without modification for its study due to the following reasons:

1. COMPLEXITY OF SOCIAL DATA: No two persons are exactly alike and even the behaviour of the same individual varies under different circumstances. So, it is difficult to generalise about social phenomena in the form of universal cause-effect relationships. For example, most people will run away from a burning building, but some may stay behind risking their own lives to save others.
2. SOCIAL PHENOMEONA IS UNPREDICTIBLE: Due to the complexity of social phenomena, it is difficult to predict human behaviour and arrive at laws that are universally true under identical circumstances. This is in contrast to the high level of predictability that prevails in the case of physical and chemical phenomena.
3. PLURALITY OF CAUSES AND INTERMIXTURE OF EFFECTS: Not only do social phenomena have a range of causes, but it is also difficult to clearly distinguish between cause and effect in the case of social data. For instance, higher rates of crime in a city may be due to unemployment, inflation and/or lax policing. Then, poverty may lead to higher rates of disability in society because more people become disabled due to lack of access to adequate nutrition and healthcare; but disability may also lead to poverty in that more disabled persons will find it difficult to find and maintain a job because they are disabled, leading to a higher incidence of poverty among disabled persons.
4. SOCIAL PHENOMENA ARE HETEROGENEOUS: Since there are multiple causes and it is difficult o demarcate between causes and effects, the relative homogeneity detected in natural phenomena gives way to a high level of diversity and heterogeneity in the case of social phenomena.
5. DIFFICULTY IN MEASURMENT AND QUANTIFICATION: Due to such diversity, it is difficult to quantify and consequently measure social categories. This is unlike the case of mass, weight, gravity, current and other physical and chemical phenomena.. For instance, urbanisation, indiscipline, assimilation and other social concepts are difficult to translate in quantitative terms.
6. SUBJECTIVITY OF THE RESEARCHER AND OBJECTIVITY OF THE RESEARCH: Since the subject and object of study, namely human beings, are the same, the experimental method becomes particularly difficult to apply. Then, laboratory experimentation is difficult in the case of human behaviour and social phenomena because it would introduce an artificiality in the research as subjects would be aware that they are being studied challenging the possibility of complete objectivity.

Furthermore, the issue of bias of the researcher and objectivity of findings arises in the case of social data. The above notwithstanding, the basic paradigm of the classical scientific method does form the backbone of most social science research even today, including research in interdisciplinary areas like women’s studies and gender studies. Indeed, one cannot deny the fact that under similar circumstances, most persons behave in similar, if not identifiably same, ways. Concepts of objectivity, cause effect relationships and verification have been complemented with concepts of intersubjectivity and interpretation, to make the classical scientific method more amenable to the study of human behaviour and society. Laboratory-based experimentation has been replaced with other data collection methods like interviews, questionnaires and field observations.

Social research essentially involves using experience to arrive at a conjecture, testing the conjecture, arriving at a result, making some prediction from the result and then testing it out again The main steps for conducting the research involve:

1. Defining the problem and formulating a set of key research questions;

2. Gathering information to answer the questions;

3. Arriving at some explanation for the problem after collecting and analysing the relevant data;

4. Interpreting the data.

5. Disseminating the results to other members of the social science community.

Notwithstanding the ideological basis of the methods used , The scientific method must be considered as a systematic, organised series of steps that ensure maximum objectivity and consistency in researching a problem.

Critique of the Scientific Method

The heuristic model of the scientific method and its practical application i.e. the gap between theory and practice of science is the source of such criticism. Social science studies of science contend that science is a social process since the experimental results must be reproducible by others in the scientific community. For instance, Thomas Kuhn (1962) felt that scientists work with preconceived notions and theories which subtly impact their observations and measurements. Once a theory is accepted by the scientific community, it not only becomes untestable but it forms the basis of other theories constituting a veritable norm.

According to Ludwik Fleck (1979), scientists must examine their own biases and experiences to understand how it impacts their research.

There are many possible critiques of the scientific method, from many different viewpoints and for many different reasons.

One of the most powerful criticisms is that in the garb of objectivity, a great deal of bias and prejudice is cloaked. For instance, racism underlies the science of eugenics just as sexism colours reproductive biology. In fact, the inhuman medicinal research carried out during the Nazi regime in Germany was embedded in a radical notion of science completely bypassing the whole issue of human morality. It is due to this massive abuse of science that research ethics emerged as a critical moderator of the scientific method to protect human subjects against harm arising out research, particularly medical research.

Scientific method has also been critiqued by feminist scholars for its androcentric, overgeneralisation, gender insensitivity and sexual double standards. Feminist research approaches and methods emphasise on experience, pluralism, pragmatism and the epistemic advantage of disadvantaged groups. They highlight the interplay of facts and values, the centrality of situated knowledge and the need to move beyond ideas of regulation and control that are intrinsically masculine in nature.