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?

Durkheim's argues that there are objective social facts about the social world, which are expressed in statistics. How can these facts be discovered?

What term is used to refer to the view that knowledge comes from sensory experience?

He argues that these objective social facts are not influenced by the researcher's personal opinion or beliefs. Why is this?

Once they have collected sets of statistics, what can researchers look for?

What may these correlations represent?

What can then be used to check that correlations represent genuine causal relationships?

According to Durkheim, if researchers follow this approach, what can they discover?

What did Durkheim believe human behaviour can be explained in terms of?

Therefore, to be scientific, what did Durkheim believe we should study?

Durkheim's approach has two key features that distinguish it from other attempts to explain how sociology can be scientific. What are they?

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?

In short, does Durkheim believe sociology is (or can be) scientific?

Who provides an alternative approach that also believes that sociology can be scientific?

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?

Rather than an inductive approach, what sort of approach does Popper therefore use?

Secondly, Popper does not agree that researchers should verify their findings (as Durkheim stated). Rather, what should they do?

Why does Popper prefer falsification, rather than verification?

According to Popper, what is the main issue with most social science?

Which sociological theory was Popper particularly critical of for its lack of precision, and why?

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?

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?

Most early sociologists (Parsons, Marx, Durkheim and Comte) and many current sociologists believe they were scientific in their approach. Would Popper agree?

While Popper's approach is very supportive of scientific method, what questions does it raise?

When did sociologists begin to question whether sociology can, or even should, claim to be a science?

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?

Which sociologists believe that the world is nothing more than a social construct?

According to interpretivists and interactionists, what shapes and influences people's behaviour?

According to phenomenologists, what is the only way to understand and categorise the external world?

For this reason, there is no solid foundation on which to base a scientific sociology. Why are these sociologists critical of empiricism?

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?

Unlike the natural world, the human social world is not predictable. Different individuals placed in identical circumstances will often react differently. Why?

From this point of view, why is it inappropriate to apply Popper's view of science to sociology?

Which group of sociologists put forward a similar argument to that of phenomenologists?

Postmodernists believe that science and modernity have gone hand-in-hand. Which postmodernist in particular argues this?

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?

Jean-François Lyotard also shows that the nature of language limits and channels science. How does it do so?

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?

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?

Which early S&TS sociologist introduced the idea of symmetry?

What did the principle of symmetry state?

Which two sociologist developed a symmetrical approach when studying the way that 'scientific facts' are constructed in a laboratory?

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?

Latour and Woolgar don't address whether or not scientific knowledge is 'true' because it isn't actually relevant. What is relevant?

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?

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?

Kuhn argues that this process, which he refers to as 'normal science', operates within a 'paradigm'. What does he mean by this?

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?

Most scientists develop their careers within a particular paradigm, which significantly impacts their work. However, sometimes new paradigms are created. How?

What prompts these scientific revolutions, according to Kuhn?

If we are to believe Kuhn, why is there no reason to believe in a paradigm?

Which sociologist argued that Kuhn's idea of paradigms is too simplistic and only applies to the past?

How is modern science characterised by Lakatos?

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?

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?

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?

How does Sayer describe the models of physical sciences based on positivism and/or Popper, and why?

What are 'closed systems'?

What are 'open systems'?

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?

From a realist viewpoint, why are positivists wrong?

According to Sayer, social sciences are therefore no different to physical sciences. What do they share?

Which sociologists often accept the realist philosophy of science?

Realist philosophy of science restores the possibility that sociology can be scientific. However, why is it criticised?

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?