14002578
Descripción
Fichas por Em Maskrey, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Em Maskrey
hace más de 6 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| While there is more than one version of positivist methodology that has influenced sociologist, whose approach is perhaps the most influential and beneficial in illustrating a positivist view of science? | Emile Durkheim's approach, as illustrated in his study of suicide. |
| Durkheim's argues that there are objective social facts about the social world, which are expressed in statistics. How can these facts be discovered? | They're discovered directly through the senses (particularly through sight). |
| What term is used to refer to the view that knowledge comes from sensory experience? | Empiricism. Durkheim is an empiricist. |
| He argues that these objective social facts are not influenced by the researcher's personal opinion or beliefs. Why is this? | Because researchers can - or at the very least, should - use appropriate methods that allow them to remain detached and objective (e.g. questionnaires). |
| Once they have collected sets of statistics, what can researchers look for? | Correlations. |
| What may these correlations represent? | Causal relationships. |
| What can then be used to check that correlations represent genuine causal relationships? | Careful analysis of the effects of different factors. |
| According to Durkheim, if researchers follow this approach, what can they discover? | The laws of human behaviour - causes of behaviour that are universal. |
| What did Durkheim believe human behaviour can be explained in terms of? | External stimuli (things that happen to us) rather than internal stimuli (what occurs in the human mind). |
| Therefore, to be scientific, what did Durkheim believe we should study? | Only the things we can observe. As such, studies of emotions, meanings or motives cannot be objective and therefore are not useful. |
| Durkheim's approach has two key features that distinguish it from other attempts to explain how sociology can be scientific. What are they? | 1. It is inductive - in trying to explain how society works, it begins by looking at the evidence and from this theories can be induced. 2. It is based on verification - theories can be verified through the collection of evidence. |
| However, not everyone who uses positivist methodology accept Durkheim's ideas in their entirety. For example, many do not believe that universal laws of behaviour can be discovered. Rather, what do they believe? | They are more modest in claiming that they have found correct explanations for particular aspects of social life, in a particular place at a particular time. |
| In short, does Durkheim believe sociology is (or can be) scientific? | Yes - he believes that any sociology that uses objective statistical methods, based on data produced by direct observation, is scientific. |
| Who provides an alternative approach that also believes that sociology can be scientific? | Karl Popper. |
| Popper agrees with Durkheim that sociology can, in principle, be scientific and should be considered as such. However, he rejects some of Durkheim's ideas. Firstly, he critical of the concept of induction. Why? | Because he believes that all research should begin with some sort of initial theory, no matter how undeveloped that theory is. |
| Rather than an inductive approach, what sort of approach does Popper therefore use? | A deductive approach - he believes researchers should use their theory to deduce what they will find from the evidence. |
| Secondly, Popper does not agree that researchers should verify their findings (as Durkheim stated). Rather, what should they do? | See if they can falsify it. |
| Why does Popper prefer falsification, rather than verification? | Because he believes that it is impossible to definitively verify a theory and thus claim it as 'law'. It is much easier to falsify something. |
| According to Popper, what is the main issue with most social science? | Its theories aren't sufficiently precise to be falsified. |
| Which sociological theory was Popper particularly critical of for its lack of precision, and why? | The marxist theory that there would be a proletarian revolution that would overthrow capitalism. The theory did not give any information about when this would happen, meaning it is impossible to falsify and therefore it is unscientific. |
| However, Popper did believe that social science could be scientific, so long as it is precise. For example, experimental research is one aspect of social science that is generally approved of by Popper. Why? | - Hypotheses are deduced from theories, which are then rigorously tested under controlled conditions. - Repetition of experiments can be used to falsify particular theories. |
| However, for a number of reasons, experiments aren't widely used in sociology. Nonetheless, sociologists do often use the 'hypothetico-deductive model'. What is this? | This approach involves developing theories, identifying hypotheses, collecting evidence and, if needed, refining or changing the theories so that they are compatible with the evidence. Once compatible, theories can then be falsified. |
| Most early sociologists (Parsons, Marx, Durkheim and Comte) and many current sociologists believe they were scientific in their approach. Would Popper agree? | It is likely that he wouldn't consider most (or perhaps any) of their work to be scientific. |
| While Popper's approach is very supportive of scientific method, what questions does it raise? | Questions about how far scientific knowledge, even in the natural sciences, should be believed. He argues that even the most rigorously tested knowledge is ultimately open to question, as it may be proved false at a later date. |
| When did sociologists begin to question whether sociology can, or even should, claim to be a science? | From around the 1960s. |
| The first criticism comes from those who argue that society isn't comparable to the natural world and, as such, attempting to transfer methods and ideas about natural sciences is a mistake. This is less about methods, and more about what? | The reality of the world around us - is there an objective world that exists independently of us, or is it somehow 'constructed' through the meanings attributed to it by human beings? |
| Which sociologists believe that the world is nothing more than a social construct? | Interpretivists, interactionists and phenomenologists. |
| According to interpretivists and interactionists, what shapes and influences people's behaviour? | The meanings they attach to the world around them. |
| According to phenomenologists, what is the only way to understand and categorise the external world? | Through language - it is impossible to observe it directly and to identify 'facts'. |
| For this reason, there is no solid foundation on which to base a scientific sociology. Why are these sociologists critical of empiricism? | What occurs in people's heads is important, despite it not being something we can directly see. If thought processes are fundamental aspects of social life, excluding them from sociological study would make sociology worthless. |
| A second criticism of the view that sociology is (or can be) a science arises from Popper's claim that scientific subjects should be based on the testing of precise predictions. Why can predictions be made about natural sciences? | Because most things studied by natural science are inanimate and don't possess consciousness (the only exception being animals). As such, they don't attach meanings to the external stimuli that might influence them. The natural world is therefore relatively predictable. |
| Unlike the natural world, the human social world is not predictable. Different individuals placed in identical circumstances will often react differently. Why? | Because they have different 'biographies' - their experiences will result in them giving different meanings to the events and objects around them. |
| From this point of view, why is it inappropriate to apply Popper's view of science to sociology? | Because if sociology were limited to only putting forward theories that made precise predictions, the subject would consist entirely of discredited theories. |
| Which group of sociologists put forward a similar argument to that of phenomenologists? | Postmodernists. |
| Postmodernists believe that science and modernity have gone hand-in-hand. Which postmodernist in particular argues this? | Richard Rorty. |
| Postmodernists challenge the view that rationality, truth and science are all bound together, questioning how far scientists produce the 'truth' about the natural world. Who did scientists replaced in modern society, according to Rorty? | Priests - priests were and scientists are sources of 'truth', helping us to make sense of the world around us. |
| Jean-François Lyotard also shows that the nature of language limits and channels science. How does it do so? | Because it provides a framework to approach an understanding of the world. |
| Language both opens up and shuts down possibilities, because we think within language and cannot think outside of our linguistic framework. As such, how does Lyotard see scientists? | As deluded in thinking that science can stand apart from the social world in which it is produced. |
| Increasingly, natural science itself has come under fire for not matching the criteria of science provided by Durkheim and Popper. Many sociologists began to examine science, finding the view of science (i.e. that it provides objective knowledge) to be questionable. What approach was subsequently developed? | Science and Technology Studies (S&TS). |
| Which early S&TS sociologist introduced the idea of symmetry? | David Bloor. |
| What did the principle of symmetry state? | All social phenomena, including science, should be explained in the same way. It makes no sense to see science as existing outside of society - like any other part of the social world, it is shaped by a variety of social factors that influence what is accepted as true or false. |
| Which two sociologist developed a symmetrical approach when studying the way that 'scientific facts' are constructed in a laboratory? | Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. |
| The scientists in the study had to fight so hard to get research grants that they had little incentive to disprove their ideas once they had finally received funding. Instead, what did they do? | They constructed reality - they would use other scientists and machines to verify their ideas. |
| Latour and Woolgar don't address whether or not scientific knowledge is 'true' because it isn't actually relevant. What is relevant? | The point that scientific knowledge, like any other knowledge, is produced through social processes and that sociologists can research, analyse and try to understand. |
| S&TS appraoches to studying science suggest that scientific knowledge is inevitably socially constructed rather than objective. To some extent, these views are similar to those put forward by which sociologist? | Thomas Kuhn. |
| Kuhn noted that science was often seen as progressing through the use of the hypothetic-deductive model, which allows ideas to be constantly redefined and improved. However, Kuhn didn't agree that this is how science actually develops. What was his theory on the development of science? | He believes that rather than science being characterised by gradual and continual changes as scientists evaluated, challenged and refined each other's ideas, most of the time scientists simply accept and support existing theories. |
| Kuhn argues that this process, which he refers to as 'normal science', operates within a 'paradigm'. What does he mean by this? | A paradigm is an accepted framework of theory, concepts and methodologies related to a particular area. |
| A paradigm dominates scientific thinking, trapping thought and investigation within it. Alternative theories, concepts and methodologies are, in most cases, rejected. What impact does this rejection has? | It makes it very difficult to conduct research to investigate the alternatives because those who propose them are often marginalised. |
| Most scientists develop their careers within a particular paradigm, which significantly impacts their work. However, sometimes new paradigms are created. How? | Scientific revolution can lead to new paradigms being created. |
| What prompts these scientific revolutions, according to Kuhn? | Over time, within normal science there may be a gradual build-up of evidence that doesn't fit into the accepted paradigm and eventually this will prompt scientific revolution and a new paradigm. |
| If we are to believe Kuhn, why is there no reason to believe in a paradigm? | Because there is no guarantee that it is true - even if a large number of scientists accept it and produce evidence to support it, it may be that they are simply interpreting the evidence to fit their theory. |
| Which sociologist argued that Kuhn's idea of paradigms is too simplistic and only applies to the past? | Imre Lakatos. |
| How is modern science characterised by Lakatos? | As largely open and much more sophisticated in its thinking - modern science is rarely shaken by paradigm shifts and its central ideas have remained intact. |
| Kuhn's theory provides an interesting way of thinking about sociology. Arguably, there has never been a single sociological paradigm that has remained dominant. Which perspective perhaps came the closest to being dominant? | Structural functionalism was very influential in America between the 1940s and 1970s. However, alternative paradigms were available. |
| Because sociology today seems more characterised by a plurality of paradigms rather than just one, it can argued that it isn't a particularly scientific subject. However, why might this be a strength more than a weakness? | Because it is debatable whether it is desirable for sociology to be scientific in the sense that it accepts a single paradigm - the subject might actually benefit from using a variety of paradigms. Indeed, it is unlikely that a single theory can explain every aspect of the social world. |
| Some sociologists adopt a realist view of science, claiming that social sciences (e.g. sociology) and natural sciences are not too dissimilar. Which sociologist supports this realist view? | Andrew Sayer. |
| How does Sayer describe the models of physical sciences based on positivism and/or Popper, and why? | As misleading, because the model fails to distinguish between the open and closed systems in which scientists operate. |
| What are 'closed systems'? | This is where stereotypical sciences (e.g. chemistry) operate. Closed systems have a limited number of variables, all of which can be controlled. As such, precise predictions can be made. |
| What are 'open systems'? | This is where other sciences (e.g. meteorology) operate. Open systems have many variables, none of which can be controlled. The unpredictable nature of open systems means that precise. predictions cannot be made. |
| However, sciences that occur within open systems are still sciences, despite their inability to make predictions. Instead of making predictions, they produce scientific knowledge. What does this further? | Our understanding of the underlying structures and processes that cause the phenomena that require explaining. |
| From a realist viewpoint, why are positivists wrong? | Because they believe that we can only observe phenomena - in reality, many accepted scientific phenomena (e.g. seismic waves) occur out of our eyesight. |
| According to Sayer, social sciences are therefore no different to physical sciences. What do they share? | The aim of uncovering the underlying structures and processes that make things happen, whether these are seismic waves (seismology) or class conflict (marxist sociology). |
| Which sociologists often accept the realist philosophy of science? | Critical social scientists, such as marxists and feminists, who look for the underlying structures and processes that cause inequality. |
| Realist philosophy of science restores the possibility that sociology can be scientific. However, why is it criticised? | Critics question whether realist approaches actually reveal the structures and processes that shape social life. |
| If structures are not able to be physically seen, direct tests of theories aren't always possible and other explanations may be given. However, how do realists counter this criticism? | They argue that the approach is based on sound understanding of the nature of the social world and the structures it contains, and it therefore shouldn't be rejected just because it poses some methodological challenges. |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.