Fact, value and objectivity

Sociology as Science Sociology as Science

PROBLEM OF OBJECTIVITY

The scientific method requires one to take a detached, impersonal and dispassionate view towards the phenomena being studied. Objectivity exists when an observation is uninfluenced by one’s personal biases, prejudices, beliefs, or values. In mathematics, objectivity is easy to achieve: 2 + 2 = 4. Studies have indicated that their is a definite tendency of people to see what they want to see or what they expect to see, or what they have been conditioned to see within their cultural context.

To many sociologists, an objective science of society remains the goal of sociology. Their view of objectivity is summarized: ‘Objectivity means that the conclusions arrived at as the result of inquiry and investigation are independent of the race, colour, creed, occupation, nationality, religion, moral preference, and political predispositions of the investigator. Broadly it refers to value freedom. If his research is truly objective and value free, it is independent of any subjective elements, and personal desires, that he may have’. In sociology, value - freedom has a variety of meanings: - sociology can successfully exclude ideological or non - scientific assumptions from research; sociologists should not make evaluative judgments about empirical evidence.

An illustration of problem in achieving objectivity

In the 1940s there was a study in which 150 men were shown photographs of 30 women. The men were asked to rank each photograph of their general liking for the women - her appeal, her intelligence, and her character. Two months later, the same men were again shown the same photographs, this time with the additions of surnames. For some of the photographs, Jewish names were added (such as Cohen), to others, Irish names (such as O’ Shaughnessy), to others, Italian names (such as Valenti) and to others, English names (such as Clarke). The addition of a Jewish name to a photograph resulted in a decrease in general liking and an increase in intelligence, according to the new ranking of the same men. Merely labeling the photographs showed how they were perceived by the men. From a study of this kind, one can conclude that perception is obviously distorted by cultural differentiation.

Just as cultural differentiation can influence perception, so can personal feelings. An example of this fact was a study conducted in Los Angeles. During the summer of 1969 a series of violent encounters occurred between members of Black Panther Party and the police. After hearing numerous complaints of police harassment and specific charges that an unusually high number of traffic citations were issued to Panther members, a researcher came to the realization that the only thing the complaints had in common was a Panther sticker attached to the bumper of their cars. The researcher undertook a study to assess the validity of their charges. Carefully screening students to participate in a study the researchers selected 15 students, each of whom had an exemplary driving record. None had received a ticket (chalan) for violation of traffic regulations within the previous year. Bumper stickers in day-glow plant depicting a panther with large BLACK PANTHER lettering were attached to the rear bumper of each participant’s car. Altogether in two and half weeks, the previously exemplary drivers received 33 citations. The researchers concluded by stating: “It is statistically unlikely to have such a collection of tickets without assuming real bias by the police against the drivers with Black Panther Party bumper stickers. The reaction of the traffic officers might have been influenced, and we hypothesize that they were, by the recent deaths of police in connection with Black Panther Party members “.

Problems of achieving objectivity in sociology

Objectivity attempts to undo such distortions. It is more difficult to achieve when dealing with human behaviour. Nevertheless, objectivity is one of the goals of those who practice sociology. However, five different kinds of arguments are advanced for sociology not being objective.

Sociological judgments are subjective, being colored by actors’ own experiences.
Research techniques such as interviews, questionnaires and social surveys are distorted due to subjectivity of the investigator.
Sociological theories are produced by, and limited to, particular social groups. Such a doctrine is often taken to be an outcome of the sociology of knowledge, which treats all knowledge as a function of social location.
In that all members of society have different values, sociologists will unconsciously, but necessarily, have their arguments influenced by their values.

Steps required for ensuring objectivity

Value judgments should be restricted to the sociologist’s area of technical competence;
At a personal level, sociologists should make clear their own values; At an institutional level, sociologists should not use their professional status as teachers to dictate values to students.
sociologists should refrain from advocating particular values. Durkheim made a distinction between sociology and social doctrine. He wanted that sociology should ignore the social doctrines of individualism and communism as they do not interpret, but aim to reform social organization.
The subject matter of sociology is human social behaviour as guided by values, impulses and interests. The many fact that sociologists study values and human valuations as social facts shows that it is an impossible task to free sociology of value, although there has been a contention from the day of Max Weber that sociology must be value - free and it should only concern it self with interpretations, but not value inferences.
In order to make sociology objective, Pareto stressed that sociologists should concentrate on “what is” than “what ought to be”.
Weber contented that sociology should be value-free. In Weber’s discussion of the philosophy of social science, there is a definite distinction between value judgment and value-interpretation. As social scientists, sociologists have to avoid making ad hoc, personal value judgments on social phenomena However, Weber thought sociology involved the interpretative understanding of social action, interpretation depends on value - interpretation. The value of a social scientist determines which questions will be asked in any inquiry, which topics will be selected for investigation and which methods will be employed for gathering data. But the sociologist must refrain from making value judgement. Weber also argued for proper training of the investigator for this purpose.

Contrary view

Some sociologists argue that objectivity in some or all of the above senses are not necessarily desirable. It is argued that the sociologist, for example, should be critical and espouse particular values.

An increasing number of sociologists now argue that the pursuit of an objective, value-free sociology is the pursuit of an illusion. Since the social world is seen to be a construction of its members, that world can only be understood in terms of members’ categories and constructs.It is, therefore, argued that sociologists must ‘study the phenomena of everyday life of their own terms’; they must ‘preserve the integrity of that phenomena’.

As the attempt to make sociology value-free has tended to make it sterile, the consensus of sociologists has gradually veered back to the value-oriented nature of the subject. What all the sociologists do is to contribute to the improvement of social life by extending knowledge and highlighting those ideas, which help men to strive for the kind of society that they desire.

One of the sociologists who had led back sociology to the world of values was Lynd. According to him, no social science can ever confine itself to the study of social tools; it must cope up with the areas of strain and uncertainty by culture. In the same manner, C.W. Mills complains of lack of sociologists’ “reforming push”. He also complains that sociology has failed to defend freedom and reason when both are gravely threatened.

The same is the view of Gunnar Myrdal. A disinterested social science is pure nonsense and it never exists. Social sciences need viewpoints and they presume valuations. However much social research might claim objectivity, a social of fact, even curiosity, the prime mover of all investigations in all sciences, is a value by itself.

It is also contended that those who plead on behalf of value-free sociology are not sure that anything fruitful could be achieved by it. True, the loftiest motives might produce the most sterile research, while idle curiosity might result in challenging findings. But this does not confirm that value-free research is great since the other way round can also be true. What one can say with conviction is that sociologists should not engage in any kind of politically motivated research. They should always conduct research as per the rules laid down by the scientific procedure, that is, accepting science in the broader sense rather than in the narrower sense.

As stated by Myrdal: “Chaos does not organize itself into any cosmos. We need view-points”. When we concede that a focus is needed for sociological research, it does not mean that the only viewpoint is that of the traditional liberal philosophy, or that of Marx’s perspective. Any scientist has the right to be aloof, since what makes man civilized is aloofness in the pursuit of science. Nevertheless, however much a scientist may be aloof, he cannot ignore the important motivation of compassion for human suffering and the pursuit of reason.

All told, what sociologists have to accept is the fact that the connotation of pure science is not relevant to their field of study. Any social science, as opposed to research in pure sciences, concentrates on practical problems and they generally lead to some fruitful efforts.

To conclude, however well - argued might be the plea on behalf of value-free sociology or pure science society, it has to be conceded that no science can be free of value, and most of all social sciences. Prof. Schwab made a study of 4,000 scientific papers produced over a span of five centuries covering mainly biology, psychology and the behavioral sciences. He concludes that the choice made by the scientists in pursuing their research was based on personal preferences as determined by personality factors and the ephemerals of circumstances. To borrow his phraseology: “There indeed are many ways of achieving knowledge and no one of them can claim moral superiority over the other and each of them is capable of illuminating the world of things in a way not precisely duplicated by the others”.

Try these Questions: Short Note : “ Problem of objectivity in Sociology”