1 Theory

Understanding the specification

AQA Specification How the specification is covered
in this chapter
The distinction between primary Section 1: What are the
and secondary data, and between quantitative and qualitative
quantitative and qualitative data methods of research?
What are the distinctions between
primary and secondary data?
What are quantitative and
qualitative methods of research?
Consensus, conflict, structural and Section 2: What are consensus
social action theories and conflict theories?
What are consensus and conflict
theories?
What are social action theories?
The concepts of modernity and Section 3: How do the concepts
postmodernity in relation to of modernity and post-modernity
sociological theory relate to sociological theory?
How do the concepts of modernity
and postmodernity relate to
sociological theory?
The nature of science and the Section 4: To what extent can
extent to which sociology can be sociology be regarded as
regarded as scientific scientific, objective and value-
free?
To what extent can sociology be
regarded as a science?
The relationship between theory Section 5: What is the
and methods relationship between theory and
sociological methods?
What is the relationship between
positivism, interpretivism and
sociological methods?
What theoretical considerations
influence research?
Debates about subjectivity, Section 6: Debates about
objectivity and value freedom subjectivity, objectivity and value
The relationship between freedom
sociology and social policy To what extent is sociology value-
free?
What is the relationship between
sociology and social policy?
Section 1: The distinction between
primary and secondary data, and
between quantitative and qualitative
data
This section will explore:
• What are the distinctions between primary and secondary data?
• What are quantitative and qualitative methods of research?

GETTING YOU STARTED

What makes good research?

What makes good sociological research was covered in Book 1

(pages 7–8). It defined good research as capturing or measuring
what was set out to be examined in the first place. The following
guidelines are not from a sociological source but a publication from
London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Council. However, the
principles outlined as guidance to its Local Government Officers are
as relevant as if it had been written by the British Sociological
Association for sociologists. It highlights factors that are common to
all good pieces of research, irrespective of the fact that each piece
of research is different:
• There is a clear statement of research aims, which defines the
research question.
• There is an information sheet for participants, which sets out
clearly what the research is about, what it will involve and consent
is obtained in writing on a consent form prior to research
beginning.
• The methodology is appropriate to the research question. So, if the
research is into people’s perceptions, a more qualitative,
unstructured interview may be appropriate. If the research aims to
identify the scale of a problem or need, a more quantitative,
randomised, statistical sample survey may be more appropriate.
Good research can often use a combination of methodologies,
which complement one another.
• The research should be carried out in an unbiased fashion. As far
as possible the researcher should not influence the results of the
research in any way.
• From the beginning, the research should have appropriate and
sufficient resources in terms of people, time, transport, money etc.
allocated to it.
• All research should be ethical and not harmful in any way to the
participants.
Adapted from White (2006).

Questions
1. Why are research aims important in any piece of research?
2. In what situations might it not be appropriate for sociological
researchers to give out an information sheet for participants and to
get their informed consent?
3. Why is it that good research often uses a combination of
methodologies?
4. Why is it important for the researcher to ensure they have
appropriate and sufficient resources?
1.1 What are the distinctions
between primary and secondary
data?
When studying the distinction between primary and
secondary data, you should have an awareness of the
difference between these two types of data.
Theoretical perspectives will inform each sociologists’ choice of data source
based on their skills, and factors like practical and ethical considerations.
Those adopting a realist approach (see page 33) will seek, as a matter of good
practice, both quantitative and qualitative data, which may require them to use
both primary and secondary sources.
Primary data
Primary data is collected first-hand by the researcher and is unique. It is
collected by the researcher personally, or using a team, through methods such
as those described in Section 2. For the researcher, the advantage of collecting
primary data is that:
• they have control over how the data is collected;
• they can adjust their research strategy and research questions to obtain data
specific to aims of their research or hypothesis; and,
• it is up-to-date data that does not currently exist within the public domain.
Secondary data
Secondary data is data that has been collected by someone else that is used by
a sociologist to ask new questions or to pool with other research. Secondary
data can include:
• literature searches of existing academic published research
• historical and personal documents
• official statistics
• journals and academic papers
• novels
• oral histories
• media content analysis of newspaper and magazine articles
• transcripts of audio/video recordings.
One of the key problems in using secondary data is that sociologists have no
control over the research procedures used to collect it. Researchers need to be
alert to the fact that secondary data is highly variable in terms of its quality. If a
researcher is confident that the data has been produced by a dependable
source, it can offer significant benefits saving both time and money. There is
little point in replicating data that already exists, unless to check the reliability
of the data. Secondary data needs to be used carefully, but can be a useful
component in the researcher’s strategy. Meta-studies will rely heavily on
published secondary material on a given subject.
When sociologists use any secondary sources they must be aware that the
motive behind its construction may reflect bias. Documents may well reflect a
desired viewpoint or official statistics may have been constructed to reflect
government policies more favourably.

Oral history
Oral history occurs when the researcher spends a significant amount of time
with participants listening to the stories they tell about their life. It is a
collaborative process of narrative building rather than an in-depth interview.
Getting people to reflect on their life experiences is becoming more popular in
certain areas of sociological research. Such individuals are seen as an
important asset with important stories to tell about the social world while they
are still living. By empowering subjects to see their experiences as important,
interviews can yield rich qualitative data, high in validity.
Some feel that there is a danger of people exaggerating, selectively
remembering or possibly putting a subjective slant on their recollections. Any
of these factors would serve to undermine the validity of the data and render it
biased. Equally, if individuals give a slightly different version of the past each
time they are interviewed, the data becomes low in terms of reliability. An
example of using oral histories is Rachel Slater’s (2000) study of how four
black South African women experienced urbanisation under apartheid.

Media content analysis

The mass media offers a colossal amount of potential data. This data can be
either quantitative or qualitative. Through adopting a systematic content
analysis it is possible to produce high-quality and objective data by analysing
media content.
It is important to remember that media content is often biased, especially
media that is allowed to openly support political parties. The Marxist
Glasgow Media Group (GMG) (see page 256) adopted highly sophisticated
techniques to ensure that their analysis was scientific and objective. Not all
researchers are this thorough in their analysis with the risk that a researcher’s
analysis ends up being little more than a subjective (personally biased)
interpretation of the content.

Novels
Novels must be used with extreme care in sociological research. The
usefulness and validity of novels will depend on the integrity and authenticity
of the research the author has undertaken. Sometimes sociologists will use
respected novels in order to verify information obtained from more traditional
sources. A feminist might use the representation of gender in novels to offer an
insight into gender relations and how these might be influenced by age, social
class, ethnicity and location.

STUDY TIP
When discussing secondary methods and data, be sure to include
official statistics and documents, discussed in Section 2, as well as
novels, oral histories and media content analysis discussed in this
section.

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
It is worth noting how both academics and the public are benefiting
from the growing accessibility of secondary sources as more become
available as they are published, particularly on the internet. In
addition, the government is frequently subject to mandatory
publication of information following Freedom of Information requests.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Using secondary data in the form of archival
sources
Knight et al. (2015) collected secondary data in order to study
everyday food and families in periods of low income and poverty. The
method they used was to analyse narrative archival sources. They
studied the content of three diaries written for the Mass Observation
Archive in the 1950s. By examining the everyday food practices
expressed in these diaries, they were able to gain an understanding of
how people ate in times of austerity.
The researchers were aware of the implications of using secondary
data – in this case from narrative archives. For example, they talk of
the challenges presented because of the ‘muted, moral and mundane’
aspects of food practices: surrounded as they are by the personal
and private as well as the social and public. Also, perceptions of what
constitutes ‘the everyday’ vary. However, the researchers state that
the data allowed them to gain an understanding of habitual food
practices and describe how this was achieved.
They found that that presentation of the diary material varied
considerably. Typed entries were mostly still legible, but in some
hand-written ones the ink had faded or the writing was difficult to
read. The narratives also varied in terms of style, and depth and
breadth of content.
The researchers took an epistemological standpoint that emphasised
the importance of context in their analysis. They aimed to
contextualise the diary entries in a number of ways. They included
statements from other accounts of the period as well as photographs
and other Mass Observation data from the time. However, they
observe that they could never fully understand or make sense of the
data, as post-war circumstances were very different to those of 21st
century Britain.
Adapted from Knight, Brannen and O’Connell (2015)

Questions
1. Briefly outline some of the problems the researchers found in using
secondary data.
2. What benefits did they find they gained from using secondary
data?
3. Using the item and your wider sociological knowledge, what
general problems can be associated with using diaries as a source
of data?
4. What problem is highlighted in the last sentence of the item with
regard to using historical documents generally?
1.2 What are quantitative and
qualitative methods of research?
When thinking about quantitative or qualitative
methods, you should have an awareness of each of
these approaches, the research methods that are
associated with them and how they are associated with
the respective approaches of positivism and
interpretivism.

The quantitative approach

When sociologists accumulate data for their research they can collect either
quantitative data or qualitative data (or both). Quantitative data refers to data
that is essentially factual and generally takes a numerical form. It is the type of
data that is traditionally associated with positivist sociologists.
Most sociologists in the nineteenth century adopted the positivist position.
Positivists believe that people’s behaviour is shaped by factors that are
directly observable, so they undertake a scientific method of collecting ‘social
facts’. As a consequence, quantitative data is often numerical in nature
expressed in the form of statistics. Because it is easier to replicate quantitative
research the data is said to be higher in reliability.
Some research methods are more appropriate than others for collecting
quantitative data. The most common research method is using a social survey,
based on a closed question questionnaire or structured interview. When
sociologists collect their own data this is known as primary data. However,
they can also simply use data that has already been collected by someone else.
This is known as secondary data and is comprised of findings from existing
research and official statistics. Often secondary data will come in the form of
quantitative data, such as official crime statistics, marriage rates, or the
percentage of pupils who attain 5 A*–C GCSEs. The quantitative approach is
favoured by researchers who are studying trends or statistical truths.

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Emile Durkheim (1897) sought to collect quantitative data through a
positivist approach in his study of suicide. It was a ground breaking
analysis of statistical data from which Durkheim concluded that social
factors rather than individual personalities caused suicide. Later,
interpretivists argued Durkheim’s positivistic approach overlooked the
meanings that lay behind not just suicidal behaviour but also how
statistics were interpreted by people like coroners.

The qualitative approach

In contrast to quantitative data which is usually numerical, qualitative data is
made up of words. Those who gather and use qualitative data are known
collectively as interpretivist sociologists, adopting an approach modelled on
social action theory, originally devised by Max Weber. Researchers can
interpret the motives and meanings behind people’s experiences by exploring
their behaviour and feelings.
The most common research methods used to collect qualitative data include
unstructured interviews and participant observation. Whereas collecting
quantitative data involves the objective accumulation of factual and
measurable data, qualitative data is subjective; essentially it is data about how
people feel. Qualitative data consequently tends to be viewed as richer in
detail than data obtained by quantitative means. Because it gets to the heart of
the matter, qualitative data is generally considered higher in validity.
It is important to recognise that while quantitative data is associated
particularly with a positivistic approach, all sociologists will inevitably
collect some numerical data in the course of their research.

STUDY TIP
As you study this topic, make a note of examples of methodological
pluralism as you come across them. Being able to cite them will
strengthen your work.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Imitating Casanova
Schuurmans and Monaghan (2015) undertook a qualitative
investigation into what they refer to as the ‘seduction community’ (SC).
This comprised young heterosexual men who shared a forum and
embodied the Casanova-myth by operating as pick-up artists. The
qualitative data was derived from life history interviews of a sample of
29 males undertaken during fieldwork in California in 2009 and 2013.
Such men, it is claimed, act as an ideal type as judged by other young
men. They are deemed to represent adventurous urban male
heterosexuality pursuing a fantastic vision of an enviable sex life – an
image, the researchers point out, interestingly promoted by the
commercialised dating industry.
Most interviewees were recruited via snowball sampling. The
interviews conducted in 2009 were fully transcribed and those from
2013 were part-transcribed, with the material analysed using an
inductive approach. It became apparent early in the research that
these SCs had a pyramid organisational structure: a large body of
novices at the bottom, a smaller amount of medium-term members
(1–3 years) and a few long-term members (over 3 years). This latter
group mainly consisted of pick-up coaches and the forum moderators.
The findings were that while the SC promoted the view that men
should become skilled at picking up beautiful women, the reality was
that as part of a longer-term quest for emotional intimacy, many
decided to abandon their ‘playboy lifestyle’ in favour of heterosexuality
with a special, deserving and attractive partner.
Adapted from Schuurmans and Monaghan (2015)

Questions
1. What is a snowball sample?
2. What issues are associated with transcribing recorded interviews?
3. In what ways will qualitative data offer advantages in this
research, compared to the collection of quantitative data?
4. What is meant by the term ‘reliable’?

Check your understanding

1. What is primary data?
2. What is secondary data?
3. Make a list of as many sources of secondary data as you can
think of.
4. What is meant by the term organic analogy?
5. What is quantitative data?
6. What methods would typically be used to collect quantitative
data?
7. What is qualitative data?
8. What methods would typically be used to collect qualitative data?
9. What is a positivist approach?
10. What is an interpretivist approach?

Practice questions
1. Outline and explain two advantages of using official statistics in
sociological research.
[10 marks]
Read Item A on page 8 and answer the question that follows.

Item A
Qualitative data tends to be made up of words, from which
researchers can extract meanings, especially to explain the actions of
actors. While all researchers can collect qualitative data, it is
generally associated with non-positivistic sociologists.
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge of research
methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of adopting a
qualitative approach to studying aspects of society.
[20 marks]
Section 2: Consensus, conflict,
structural and social action theories
This section will explore the following debates:
• What are consensus and conflict theories?
• What are social action theories?

GETTING YOU STARTED

Defining ‘pimp’

Holly Davis (2013) felt that while the topic of prostitution received a
lot of coverage, the focus tended to be on the sex workers rather
than the pimps. She argues that the word pimp is used in an
ambiguous manner, making it difficult to make consistent and clear
comparisons within the growing body of literature on prostitution. She
states it is important to operationalise the term pimp and offers a
more robust definition drawing from history, cultural context,
mainstream usage, academic applications and feedback from pimps
themselves. Her new definition of pimp is: ‘an individual who
financially profits from, and manages the activities and income of,
one or more individuals involved in prostitution’.
While prostitution is perennial, pimps are exceptionally under-
studied, not least because of the inaccessibility of the population. As
a consequence research into this group has been restricted,
resulting in very limited, both historical and current.
Adapted from Davis (2013)

Questions
1. Why is it important to generally have clear-cut and shared
definitions of terms?
2. Davis calls pimps ‘inaccessible’. What typical problems are
researchers faced with when their subject matter is elusive and
operate in the underground?
3. Using the item and your broader sociological knowledge discuss
some of the dangers associated with researching sex work.
2.1 What are consensus and
conflict theories?
Remember that functionalism and the New Right are
examples of consensus theories and theories like
Marxism, neo-Marxism and feminism are examples of the
conflict theories.
Structural consensus theory
‘Consensus’ means a shared view or agreement between people. Consensus
theories argue that society works effectively – consequently it benefits both the
individual and society. The main source of consensus is the socialisation
process whereby norms, values and appropriate behaviour are taught and
learnt. This is a lifelong process but occurs particularly in the early years of
childhood. Without some form of consensus human society would not be
possible. The key consensus theory in sociology is functionalism (originally
called ‘structural functionalism’). Functionalism is a structural theory as well
as being a macro-theory, concerned with understanding human behaviour
through the way in which society operates as a whole.
What is the functionalist perspective?
This theory is centred on how the component parts that make up society operate
in a way that is both functional to its members and the maintenance of society
as a whole. The origins of functionalism go back to influential thinkers of the
nineteenth century, including Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) and Emile
Durkheim (1858–1917).
Spencer, heavily influenced by Charles Darwin, emphasised the evolutionary
development of society and its component parts. Through his ‘organic
analogy’ Spencer compared society to the human body. Just as an organism is
made up of organs that are interrelated and interdependent, then so is society
made up of social institutions (such as family, education, work) that are
interrelated and interdependent.
Durkheim, a contemporary of Spencer, developed a key understanding of the
role that consensus values played in reinforcing social order and stability in
society. Emile Durkheim is often viewed as the key influence on the
development of functionalism. Functionalists share many of Durkheim’s ideas
such as value consensus; the role core values play on sustaining consensus.
Durkheim emphasised the importance of a socially integrated society, held
together by the collective conscience of the people. Durkheim stated that, ‘the
individual is the point of arrival, not departure’ which implies that individuals
have little control over their own lives let alone the ability to change society.
Durkheim also used the organic analogy of comparing society to a body (see
page 10).
Such ideas were to prove highly influential to a group of sociologists in the
mid twentieth century in the USA who developed ‘structural functionalism’. As
a theory, it is heavily influenced by Durkheim’s consensus view of society. As
a theory it also reflects Spencer’s ideas though its focus on integration derived
from inter-relationships between institutions and their members.
The person most credited with the development of structural functionalism is
Talcott Parsons (1902–1979). He supported Durkheim’s emphasis on the role
of core values in reinforcing social order and stability in society. In addition,
Parsons also saw the agencies of socialisation as the key promoter of these
core values. Parsons’ biggest contribution to understanding society is probably
his social systems theory, which embraces both structure and functioning.
Parsons viewed society as a system made up of four sub-systems (economic,
political, kinship and cultural) each specifically there to meet essential human
needs. These needs are referred to by Parsons as imperatives or prerequisites.
Society is in social equilibrium when these needs are met and a balance exists
within the system and its sub-systems.
He developed key concepts, such as ‘collective conscience’ to describe the
moral values that were core to any society, serving to bind people together.
Within this structural consensus theory the importance of unity and social order
is seen to come from the sharing of core values held throughout society. Such
core values serve to integrate society together, for example by establishing and
reinforcing cultural rules and a moral code. The primary and secondary
socialising agencies (social institutions like the family, education, religion,
mass media, etc.) each help to promote conformity. They do this through
reinforcing the core values of society (such as respecting authority, hard work
and achievement, valuing the family). Failure to conform is addressed by these
agencies through sanctions of disapproval or punishment.
Within the system of society, Parsons argued there were four sub-systems:
economic, political, kinship and cultural. Each of these sub-systems functions
to meet essential human needs. So important are they that Parsons refers to
them as imperatives or prerequisites of society. For society to be healthy and
survive, it has to deal with four problems: adaptation, goal attainment,
integration and latency (also called pattern maintenance).
Functionalism dominated sociology until the 1960s, when it became
increasingly challenged by Marxist and interactionist thinking. Its critics argue
that it is a naïve and overly optimistic theory; choosing to over-emphasise
consensus while ignoring the widespread conflict that exists in society. As a
theory it also struggles to adequately explain social change.

Criticism of functionalism
Functionalism rapidly lost support following its decline in the 1960s. Critics
argue that functionalism declined because it failed to account for the growing
diversity and conflict in society. The New Right perspective, although rooted
in political neo-liberal ideology, shares many ideas with functionalism.
Specific criticism of functionalism includes:
• There is simply too much emphasis on consensus and not enough recognition
of the degree of conflict that exists in society between social classes, ethnic
groups and men and women.
• The organic analogy, which effectively reifies society (turns it into a living
organism), serves to ignore the divisive nature of the class system and the
unequal distribution of power.
• Unlike Marx’s historical materialism which portrays the development of
human society in stages, functionalism fails to see society as an historical
system, shaped by the conflicting interests of its participants.
What is New Right theory?
Although New Right theory is, strictly speaking, a political ideology centred
on neo-liberal principles, its contribution to the sociological debate simply
cannot be ignored. Its neo-liberal support for free-market capitalism offers a
polar opposite to the anti-capitalist Marxist perspective. Although it is
criticised for being ideologically blinkered, it is by no means the only
sociological perspective to be accused of this.
The New Right perspective adopted many, but not all, of the ideas of
functionalism. The decline of functionalism’s influence after the 1960s created
a vacuum of right-wing political ideas in sociology. In the 1980s writers like
Friedrich Hayek (1944) became influential, particularly with the Thatcher
government in the UK and the Reagan administration in the USA. The political
influence of right-wing neo-liberal politics spread globally and the New Right
quickly established a presence in sociology.

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Friedrich von Hayek (1899−1992) grew up in early twentieth-century
Austria. He was shocked by the totalitarianism of the communist
Soviet Union and the fascist regime of the Nazi government in
Germany. His book The Road to Serfdom (1944) was a response to
the growth of economic planning in the wartime economies of
countries like Great Britain. Hayek fiercely supported the free market
in allocating resources, claiming that state planning was inevitably
‘coercive’. He argued that strong states damaged society, by
restricting personal freedoms.

New Right thinking has always been something of a controversial perspective.

For example, it has received negative criticism for adopting a rather dogmatic
approach to things like lone-parent families, the underclass and homosexuality.
Nonetheless, its ideas penetrated, and challenged, many of the prevailing ideas
of sociology in relation to Year 1 topics: the family, education and poverty,
work and wealth. In Year 2 topics it plays a significant role in crime and
deviance, and global development.
The New Right has influenced social policy in contemporary governments
globally. For instance, it has almost become a received wisdom of consensus
opinion that it is no longer possible, or even desirable, to go back to the social
democratic welfare state of post-war Britain. This era of cradle-to-grave
government intervention and support is sometimes described as ‘the golden age
of the welfare state’. It went hand in hand with Keynesian demand management
economic policy. This was implemented by post-war governments in the 1950s
and 1960s and is credited with securing full employment for over 20 years.
Any shortfall in consumer spending was compensated for by an increase in
government spending. Keynesian economics became discredited because of
rising inflation in the 1970s. Prime Minister Thatcher, by embracing New
Right ideas in the 1980s, set a theme of British politics that argued that the free
market, rather than government, was the most efficient allocator of resources.
After just under 20 years of Thatcherism, Tony Blair effectively carried on the
same theme. Although officially he advocated a ‘third way’, midway between
neo-liberalist economic efficiency and social democratic compassion, his
social and economic policies were fundamentally those of the New Right. For
example, as a long-term supporter of blaming crime on structural causes
(‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’), once Prime Minister he
quickly converted to the familiar New Right concern with the ‘problem family’
as the main cause of crime. Government policies advocated New Right
solutions of zero tolerance policing and more prisons. Wider social policy
scapegoated lone mothers, teenage pregnancy, dysfunctional families, the
work-shy and the substance abuser. Blair’s ‘solution’ to crime was welfare to
work policies and cutting benefits.
The Thatcher legacy of cutting back the state and welfare and embracing neo-
liberal socio-economic policies became ever more obvious in the coalition
government (2010–2015) and apparently remains so in the 2015–2020
Conservative government.
As a sociological perspective, New Right thinking has been largely isolated
and commands limited support other than from its few enthusiastic advocates.
Politically, however, New Right thinking has been massively influential in
shaping government policies globally since the 1980s. Such influence means
that it would be naïve and simplistic for sociologists to simply dismiss it.
Criticisms of the New Right
• Many of their ideas are seen as simplistic and short-sighted, ignoring the
complexities of modern society and reinforcing stereotypes that lack
evidence.
• For example, Charles Murray’s views on lone mothers and the underclass
have been denounced by Alan Walker (1990) as reliant on little more than
‘innuendos, assertions and anecdotes’ rather than firm evidence.
• Others challenge the naïve assumptions of the New Right that we have
equality of opportunity and live in a meritocracy.
Structural conflict theory
An alternative view to consensus theory is conflict theory. Note this is also
normally a structural theory so has the same macro-theory characteristics of
making sense of human behaviour through trying to understand how society
works. As the name implies, its starting criticism of consensus theory is that it
ignores the considerable amount of conflict that exists in society. Conflict
theory sees society as being comprised of different groups who each possess
unequal amounts of power. This power imbalance applies to any inequality in
society such as gender, ethnicity and particularly social class. Society, they
argue, is characterised by inequality because of the domination of
disadvantaged groups by more advantaged ones. The key structural conflict
theory in sociology is Marxism, derived from the work and ideas of Karl Marx
(1818–1883).
What is the Marxist perspective?
Like functionalism, Marxism is a response to modernism. Karl Marx was able
to observe, first-hand, the new industrial society of capitalism. Like
functionalism, this theory is structuralist in that it places a lot of emphasis on
the structures that make up society. The two theories have also been described
as macro-theories, as they are top-down theories that explain the operation of
society as a system. Politically, functionalism and Marxism are poles apart,
and in contrast to the consensus basis of functionalism, Marxism is based on a
conflict analysis of society, especially that centred on class conflict. Marxism
is preoccupied with the economic system of capitalism.
Marx also viewed society as a system, but in his case an economic system he
called capitalism. Capitalism is made of two classes, the bourgeoisie (who
own the wealth; expressed as the means of production) and the proletariat
(who do all the work and therefore generate all the wealth). Crucially, Marx
argued, the interests of these two classes will never coincide; therefore
conflict is endemic within capitalism. But as with the gender inequality that
was accepted until feminism raised women’s consciousness, society gives the
impression of a social class consensus, with most of the proletariat accepting
and even supporting the blatant inequalities that exist in society.
Despite the fact that society is fundamentally divided and unfair, with life
chances very much shaped by the income and wealth of your parents, most
people openly support society as it is. Consider how there is little support for
any radical political party in elections, and how the major parties, who secure
the bulk of the votes, offer ‘more of the same’ with minor adjustments. To
explain people’s ‘false consciousness’ (of their true exploited position), Marx
recognised that social institutions such as the family, religion and the media act
as diversionary institutions. Marx’s famous phrase ‘religion … is the opiate
of the people’ implies that religion has functioned primarily to befuddle people
to accept their lot in life in return for the promise of a better afterlife. Workers
are too busy becoming slaves to paying the bills and putting food on the family
table to bother about their true class position. The media offers escapism, such
as the consolation that our lives haven’t got half the problems of the characters
in EastEnders, or by generating unsatisfied wants by advertising the next ‘must
have’ product. Either way, the fact that the very privileged are born to rule and
provided with institutions to facilitate this, such as an exclusive private school
system, goes largely unnoticed.
Marx used the phrase ‘bourgeois ideology’ to reflect the fact that dominant
ideas in society reflect the interests of the dominant class. An ideology is
simply a set of ideas used to shape people’s attitudes and behaviour and
inevitably reflecting the interests of dominant groups. Marx used the analogy of
the camera obscura to show that ideology is a set of ideas capable of making
circumstances ‘appear upside down’ and ‘inverting’ our perception of reality.
The workers end up supporting capitalism, the very economic system (or
‘infrastructure’) that exploits them and fills them with a sense of alienation.
Ideology that pervades the ‘superstructure’ therefore alters and distorts the
individual’s perception of the outer world – their objective social reality.

Marxism is much better equipped than functionalism to deal with and explain
social change, as this is a cornerstone to Marx’s theory. Through his theory of
historical materialism, Marx portrayed capitalism as merely a stage or ‘epoch’
in the history of human development. The end of history, he argues, will be a
truly equal communist society. The driver of social change, Marx argued, is
class conflict. He shows that all societies are class societies with a dominant
and a subordinate class. The interests of these two classes can never coincide,
and ultimately the subordinate class will seize power and overthrow the
dominant class. Under capitalism, the dominant class is the ‘bourgeoisie’ and
the subordinate class the ‘proletariat’. However, Marx showed that the
subordinate class can be duped and fooled into supporting the society that
actually exploits it. He referred to this process as ‘false consciousness’.
Marx was clearly aware of how ideologies can distort reality and prevent
workers seeing their true class position – exploited, alienated beings.
Institutions like the media, religion, education and the family all divert
people’s attention away from revolutionary thought.
Neo-Marxism
Neo-Marxists took Marx’s ideas and interpreted them in light of the changes
they saw between the world in which Marx made his observations and the
world they saw around them. They also can offer some criticisms of traditional
Marxist analysis, particularly its economic determinism. Three broad neo-
Marxist traditions evolved in the twentieth century; each is discussed below.

Gramsci’s concept of hegemony

Antonio Gramsci (1971) argued that ideology was just as important as
economic class structure in maintaining the ruling class’s political dominance.
This was Gramsci’s concept of hegemony – that dominant groups exercise
control over minority groups through ideas. Hegemony is a subtle form of
control: winning people’s support for capitalism avoids the need for coercion
by agents of control such as the police, courts and prisons. Hegemony is
therefore achieved through the legitimation of power within popular culture.
Social institutions, such as the media, education and religion, are used to
justify, explain and win support for the system that is actually exploiting the
working class. Gramsci’s work, because it distances itself from the class
structure and is embedded within people’s ideas, is sometime called ‘humanist
neo-Marxism’.

Althusser’s ideological state apparatus

Louis Althusser’s (2005) description of the role of ideology is similar to
Gramsci’s, but Althusser places greater importance on the structures that
support and transmit such ideologies – ideological state apparatuses. These
apparatuses are the major social institutions that make up society such as the
family, education, religion, media and even things like health organisations like
the NHS. Althusser argues that such institutions legitimise inequalities by
subconsciously introducing a particular set of ideas (see Book 1, Education
page 52 and Health page 225). The ruling class maintains its power by having
these apparatuses socialise the norms and values that preserve the status quo.
Should these everyday apparatuses prove inadequate in fulfilling this
ideological role then the state will draw upon its repressive state agencies –
the coercive power of the riot police and, if policing proves inadequate, the
armed forces. Because of its emphasis on the ideological role of social
institutions, Althusser’s work is sometimes called ‘structuralist neo-Marxism’.

The Frankfurt School

The third important neo-Marxist influence has been the Frankfurt School who
are credited with the development of conflict theory. The School established
itself in the USA in the 1930s after fleeing Nazi persecution. Critical theory
attempts to explain the perpetual power of the ruling class as stemming from
subtle ideologies of consumerism and individualism which promote false
consciousness. One of the best applications of the School’s work has been to
the mass media (see Book 1, page 119, and the Media chapter page 256). An
important idea is that of culture industry whereby all forms of culture get
reduced to mass culture; manufactured and superficial, devoid of artistic merit
but produced to entertain and keep the proletariat under control. More widely,
critical theory has been credited with encouraging a questioning of everything.
Such has been the influence of the Frankfurt School over the post-war decades
that the author Michael Walsh (2015) claims they are responsible for being a
leading influence in the social justice movement and even the drive for
political correctness.

Criticisms of Marxism
• Critics argue that Marxism over-stresses conflict and underestimates the
extent of consensus in society.
• As a theory it is criticised for being over-negative and crudely deterministic
in that all social problems are inevitably blamed on the capitalist system.
• Critics argue that people (not the economic system) make their own history
and, for that reason, the assumed future of communism cannot be predicted.
• Functionalists argue that Marxism places too much emphasis on conflict at
the expense of recognising the fair amount of consensus in society.
• Feminists argue that the focus solely on class ignores gender relations.
• The proletariat show no appetite for a revolution, although Marxists explain
this away through false consciousness.
Structural Consensus Theory Structural Conflict Theory Marxism
Functionalism
Links to Emile Durkheim Karl Marx
‘founder’
Similarities Macro-theory: society is structural Macro-theory: society is structural (bigger
(bigger than the individual) and than the individual) based on the economic
seen as a social system made of system of capitalism.
component social institutions.
Analogy Organic analogy of comparing Building analogy of economic foundation of
society to a body with organs the infrastructure that supports the
(social institutions) made up of superstructure of social institutions, culture
cells (people). and ideas.
Role of Importance of socialisation to instil
Importance of socialisation for the imposition
socialisation consensus of shared core values. of bourgeois ideology to instil false
consciousness.
Social Change is slow and evolutionary Society moves through stages or ‘epochs’.
change because consensus means Change derives from conflict because the
everyone works together to interests of the subordinate class never
maintain equilibrium. coincide with those of the dominant class.
Fairness Society is fair, with meritocratic Society is fundamentally unfair with the class
principles that reward the talented system serving to reproduce inequalities in
and hard-working. society.
Inequality Seen as a good thing encouraging Seen as a bad thing reflecting unequal
ambition and hard work. chances and oppression.
Summary Helps us understand how society Helps us understand how society reflects the
is integrated to function as a interests of one class and the degree of
whole. inequality and exploitation that exists in
society.

Table 1.1

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
Parsons’ idea of society as a ‘system’ made up of component parts is
a useful idea to this debate. Think of a car engine as basically
comprised of pistons, spark plugs and a fuel pump. Each of these
component parts does nothing on its own, but when combined
together they operate as a system and make the engine work.
Society is also like a system, made up of component parts (such as
family, education, the state) and together they make society work.
However, if one component fails then this stops society operating
efficiently.
KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Jürgen Habermas (1929–) is a neo-Marxist who revitalised the
Frankfurt School into its second generation. He adopts an optimistic
appraisal by predicting that capitalism will undergo a series of crises.
In particular, he predicts a legitimation crisis whereby, unable to
finance welfare spending, states embark upon a laissez-faire (free-
market) approach. This, he predicts, will only serve to disillusion the
people not only with politicians and political parties (who increasingly
offer the electorate similar policies) but with the capitalist system
itself. He therefore promotes an optimistic view of the development of
an increasingly class-conscious working class.
Feminism as a conflict theory
Conflict theory’s central focus is on the conflict they see as inherent in society.
Yet this conflict of interest is not always recognised or resented, even by the
disadvantaged in society. The reasons for this, conflict theorists argue, is that
socialisation operates as a means of sustaining and justifying the inequalities
that exist in society. Thus, feminists argue, women put up with oppression from
patriarchy in the past because from childhood they had been socialised into
accepting the subordination of women as somehow natural and normal. Men,
girls learnt, were the logical and appropriate choice to be head of households,
breadwinners while women stayed at home, paid more in the workplace,
occupiers of all the senior religious positions and dominators of politics and
public life. It was not until feminism raised women’s consciousness about the
fundamental unfairness of the way society has been gendered in the interests of
men, that women began to sit up and question the assumed consensus and
‘normality’ of male domination.

STUDY TIP
Both consensus theory and conflict theory have strengths and
weaknesses. While students often favour one theory over another, it
is important to retain balance to be able to write critically about each.
This is especially so when they are being applied to specific
sociological perspectives such as functionalism, Marxism and
feminism.

What is the feminist perspective?

Feminism developed as a specific theoretical perspective within sociology
because its supporters claimed that especially before the 1960s the subject
often rendered women invisible by ignoring them and their experiences.
Feminists argued that even if women were considered, sociology frequently
marginalised the importance of women’s roles. Feminists argue that this was
largely as a result of the systematic biases and inadequacies of what they refer
to as ‘malestream’ theories. A feminist theory was necessary as a check to
such male domination as illustrated across the chapters in both this volume and
Book 1 (see page 318).
Feminism also offers an alternative view and constructs reality by drawing on
women’s own interpretations of their own experiences and interests. Feminist
theory can be complex. It is a structural theory in the sense that it is centred on
how patriarchy shapes the experiences of women (and men) across society.
However, it is also interpretive since it seeks to make sense of women’s
experiences by portraying the meanings of being a woman in patriarchal
society. The evolution of feminism is often described in terms of ‘waves’:
• First wave feminism: associated with the campaign for votes before and
after the First World War.
• Second wave feminism: associated with the women’s liberation movement
of 1960s and 1970s.
• Third wave feminism: associated with postmodernist ideas of individualism
and differentiation (see Table 5.2 in Book 1, page 179). Women were
recognised as having a variety of experiences and outcomes associated with
income, wealth, ethnicity, age, locality and belief systems (see Religion
chapter, page 129).
• Fourth wave feminism: activist campaigning to build a strong, popular
reactive movement particularly by embracing online technology (see Media
chapter, page 256).
As a perspective it is divided into different types of feminisms, reflecting
disagreement on the nature, causes and solutions to patriarchy.

Liberal feminism
This type of feminism views gender inequality as stemming primarily from the
ignorance of men that derives primarily from the strength of socialisation and
‘sex-role conditioning’. The solution to gender inequality is simply the
education and reform of men, although they recognise this sometimes needs the
‘stick’ of anti-discrimination legislation. This is therefore the least radical of
all the feminisms and is often criticised by other feminists for glossing over the
true oppression and exploitation which women experience. Other feminists
also claim that men are not simply ignorant, but have a vested interest in
maintaining the patriarchal ways of living and thinking that empower them.
Liberal feminism is usefully applied to social policy and education in Book 1
(page 80).

Marxist-feminism
As their name implies these are feminists who adopt the Marxist view that the
economic dependence women have on men has been created by capitalism.
This serves two functions: firstly, to provide cheap female workers who can
be exploited even more than men, and secondly to ensure that household chores
are done cheaply. When women did enter the workforce; they traditionally
worked in low-paid, low-status, mainly part-time jobs (although this can now
be viewed as somewhat simplistic and changing). Marxist-feminists argue that
the solution to women’s oppression is the abolition of capitalism. This would
eradicate the double oppression of patriarchy in the home and economic
exploitation in the workplace. The Marxist-feminist perspective is usefully
applied in the Global Development chapter in the context of ‘exploitation
thesis’ (see pages 241 and 253) which emphasises how the global spread of
capitalism involves the systematic exploitation of women.

Radical feminism
This is the most extreme form of feminism. Radical feminists focus their
attention on the power relations between men and women, which is referred to
as ‘sexual politics’. They argue that all women are oppressed by men, in
particular within the home, and need to break this imbalance of power through
a collective identification of their interests through a sense of ‘sisterhood’.
Radical feminists see gender as a shared class identity. They argue that women
share the same sex-class position because they are controlled and sometimes
abused by the violence of men. Women’s liberation can only be achieved by
actively challenging and eradicating the prevailing systems of patriarchy. An
interesting and extreme expression of radical feminism is that of separatism
which argues that women can only be free when men are isolated entirely from
their lives.

Black feminism
Black feminism derived because black women felt white feminists failed to
recognise some women were oppressed not only by feminism but by racism as
well. Black feminists criticised the ethnocentricity of most feminism, which
was blinkered and focused on just white women’s experiences. Therefore, in
order to eliminate women’s subordination, the system of racism must be
challenged, alongside patriarchy and capitalism. Black feminism plays an
important role in differentiating different women’s experiences of family life.
Recognising that racism can be a frequent experience for women from Black
and Minority Ethnic Groups (BMEs) they are more positive about the
institution of the family, seeing it as a potential haven for its members in a
racist world.

Postmodernist feminists
The claim of some that we now live in a postmodern society has led to two
polar strands in feminism. Some people, called post-feminists, argue that the
shift towards an increasingly gender-equal society has made feminism no
longer relevant. The battle has largely been won! Clearly the bulk of feminists
would challenge this assertion.
The other strand of postmodernist feminism embraces the essential argument of
postmodernism that we are now living in an increasingly fragmented and
pluralistic society centred on individuality and multiple identities. While they
recognise that gender is clearly a very important determinant of life chances,
the experiences of individual women differ. Factors like social class, age,
ethnicity, physical appearance and even locality all shape and individualise
women’s experiences. Clearly some women are more oppressed by men than
others, so a more individualistic approach is necessary, rather than a one size
fits all approach. An example of postmodernist feminism being applied to a
social context is the discussion and comparison of difference feminism’s
contribution to our understanding of the family (see Book 1, page 179). Both
Linda Nicholson and Cheshire Calhoun are described as difference feminists.
Difference feminism recognises that women’s experiences of family life varies
depending on their type of household. They are critical of feminist
perspectives that overlook this simple point.

Criticisms of feminism
• The strength of feminism is that it redresses the way in which women have
been systematically ignored from malestream sociology. As a perspective it
 focuses on the issues and meanings of being female, and the oppression of
women (possibly as a sex-class) by patriarchal forces.
• It is ethnocentric, largely ignoring black women. It ignores the fact that for
black women racial oppression may be of equal or greater significance.
• It is orientated to Western society and largely ignores Third World women.
• It ignores the positive way in which many women view the family and
relationships with women.

STUDY TIP
In elaborating the differences between consensus and conflict theory,
focus on consensus theory’s defence of the status quo and the
positive aspects of society. Conflict theory, in contrast, is much more
focused on the negative aspects and the ever-changing nature of
society.
2.2 What are social action
theories?
The origins of action theory lie with Max Weber (1864–1920). It is very
different to the structural/macro approaches of functionalism and Marxism.
Instead, action theory focuses on the micro-level of social life – the way in
which individuals interact with one another. Society is seen to be the end-
product of all this, whereas to a structural theorist society is seen as the
starting point. So instead of seeing a system into which individuals are born
and are socialised into the prevailing norms and values, action theory argues
that only by looking at how individual humans are able to interact can we come
to understand how social order is created. So just like any sociological theory,
the purpose of action theory is to explain human behaviour, but it avoids
making assumptions of the determinism of the constraining social structure.
Instead it examines the personal meanings that lie behind actions and
recognises the importance and influence of other individuals in shaping
behaviour. Action theory argues that the nature of society lies not in the fact
that it is a system but the extraordinary ability of humans to work out what is
going on around them. From this they can then choose to act in a particular
way, in the light of this interpretation. Hence action theory is also called
interpretive theory.
Since people’s actions stem from their conscious engagement in what are
perceived to be meaningful encounters, the result is social order (the shared
imagination in people’s minds of a society that seems to work). But this order
is not derived from the imposition of cultural rules, as consensus theorists see
it. Nor is it the result of the constraints of a world where advantages are
unequally distributed as the conflict theorists see it. Instead, society is the
result of interactions, carried out by actors interpreting and giving meaning to
the social settings they find themselves in, and choosing courses of action
accordingly. Action theory has been most closely developed into the
sociological perspective of interactionism.
What is the interactionist perspective?
Interactionism, also called symbolic interactionism, derives particularly from
Max Weber’s action theory. It was developed by sociologists at the University
of Chicago, in particular Herbert Blumer and George Herbert Mead in the mid
twentieth century. As a perspective it is fundamentally different to both
functionalism and Marxism. It rejects any attempt to make sense of society as a
system, choosing instead as its starting point to try and understand the meanings
behind individual actions. As a consequence it is described as micro-
sociology because its starting point is how individuals make sense of the
world, not how society works. It has three key characteristics:
• It focuses on the interaction between the individuals (who it calls actors) and
the world (effectively the actors’ ‘stage’ on which they perform a variety of
roles).
• It is interested in the actions of individuals (such as why people choose to
behave the way they do as ‘voluntaristic’ behaviour), rather than the
structures in which they operate (such as family obligations, compulsory
education, speed cameras, etc.).
• It stresses the importance of an actor’s ability to interpret the social world,
arguing there is no objective reality, instead the world is real inside the head
of each individual.
Much of interactionism centres on the concept of self, which is at the very hub
of this perspective. As individuals we are very conscious of the people around
us and how they think about us and our behaviour. As such, the self can be
interpreted in three ways:
• how we imagine we appear to others
• how we imagine their judgement of that appearance; and
• our response to those perceived judgements, such as pride, anger or
humiliation.
Erving Goffman (1959) developed the idea of the self. He recognised the
discrepancy between our ‘all-too-human selves and our socialised selves’.
The tension is between what people expect us to do, and what we
spontaneously want to do.
The concept of power relations and labelling theory were introduced by
Howard Becker (1963). He noted how powerful groups can impose labels on
the less powerful. Such labels often stick and can become self-fulfilling, so a
teacher may negatively label a student as ‘stupid’ or ‘troublesome’ which can
become a shared meaning and even internalised by the student who may feel an
obligation to live up to the label.
To interactionists, there is no such thing as objective reality. Reality is what is
inside people’s heads – individual’s interpretations of the world. This is an
idea that would be adopted subsequently by postmodernists. Both
functionalists and Marxists criticise interactionism for neglecting social
structures which they argue impact directly on people’s lives and shape life
chances and opportunities. Marxists argue that the structure of social class is
particularly important, whether or not actors are consciously aware of it.

Check your understanding

1. What is meant by the term organic analogy?
2. What did Durkheim mean by the collective conscience?
3. What ideology underpins New Right theory?
4. What do Marxists mean by diversionary institutions?
5. What point is being made with Marx’s analogy of the camera
obscura?
6. What do the terms infrastructure and superstructure mean?
7. What did Gramsci mean by hegemony?
 8. Why is feminism seen as both a structuralist and an interpretivist
theory?
9. Which sociologist developed social action theory?
10. What do the terms macro-sociology and micro-sociology mean?

Practice questions
1. Outline and explain two advantages of using personal documents
in sociological research.
[10 marks]
Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.

Item A
Feminists have contributed a lot to broadening the knowledge base
and using knowledge to change society. Because feminism is a radical
and different perspective it effectively ‘deconstructs’ existing
knowledge that is ‘malestream’.
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge of research
methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of adopting a feminist
approach to studying aspects of society.
[20 marks]
Section 3: How do the concepts of
modernity and postmodernity relate
to sociological theory?
This section will explore the following debate:
• How do the concepts of modernity and postmodernity relate to
sociological theory?

GETTING YOU STARTED

What is meant by modernity?
The modern period is generally agreed to have developed following
the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. This was a fertile
academic and intellectual movement of rational and scientific
thinking. It challenged the religious ideas that had prevailed for
centuries replacing faith with reason. At the same time, the modern
world was being shaped by three other significant forces. The
Industrial Revolution had begun in Britain transforming rural
agricultural societies to urban industrial ones. Modernity described
the development of early capitalism with an industrial proletariat or
waged labour replacing the rural peasants or serfs.
Politically, modernity also saw the creation of many nation states.
Within Europe countries like Germany and Italy evolved from
component principalities into nations; and new states were created in
Africa, Asia and the Americas in the race to colonise the world.
The third key area which modernism is associated with is culture.
Modernity challenged traditional culture, often shaped by legend,
superstition and stories, replacing it with a rationality centred on
scientific and technical knowledge.
Sociology itself can be viewed as a legacy of the Enlightenment and
a product of modernity. This is reflected in the ideas of positivism
together with the grand theories developed by Marx, Durkheim and
Weber. Anthony Giddens (1987) saw the development of modernity,
and its new intellectual expression through these three ‘founders’ of
sociology as serving to challenge the very essence of knowledge
and what it was for. Sociology in this period of modernity had a belief
in progress and embraced science both as a characteristic of
modern thinking, but also as a means to bring about reform and, in
the case of Marx, the goal of revolution. Sociological theory was
portrayed as the means to understand society in order to improve
human lives through the pursuit of progress.
Adapted from ‘Introduction to Social Theory’ (unpublished: Itchen College)

Questions
1. Briefly explain the Enlightenment.
2. Identify and explain the three significant forces that helped shape
the modern period.
3. In what ways can sociology itself be viewed as a product of
modernity?
3.1 What is modernity?
To understand modernity or postmodernity, you need to
understand the characteristics of each in order to make
comparisons and contrasts.
Postmodernity literally means ‘after modernity’. This implies it was preceded
by a period of modernity and before that there was a period we can call pre-
modernity. In sociology modernity reflects the era of industrialisation. It is
also associated with positivism, and the ‘grand theories’ developed by
classical sociologists like Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Indeed sociology
itself can be viewed as a product of modernity. Modernity is often discussed in
relation to three key areas: economics, politics and culture. Economically,
modernity is associated with industrialisation and early capitalism. This came
about from market trading, both within countries and globally as colonialism
and the slave trade developed. Politically, modernity is associated globally
with the development of the nation state and internally with the centralised
bureaucratic nation state and class-based political party systems. Culturally,
modernity is associated with traditions and the accumulation of rational,
scientific and technical knowledge. It is therefore no surprise that sociology
itself was a product of modernity. The ‘founders’ of sociology (Durkheim,
Marx and Weber) all shared a common intellectual interest in making sense of
human behaviour in this period of industrialisation.
Some sociologists, like Anthony Giddens, prefer to use the term ‘high
modernity’ to postmodernity in order to stress the continuities with modernity.
The implication is that we are in a mature stage of modernity, rather than a
distinctly new type of society after modernity. Marxists argue that however
society implies it has changed superficially, it is fundamentally the same old
economic system of capitalism that underpins it.
3.2 What is postmodernist
theory?
As noted above, the period of modernity is associated with industrialisation.
Since society today is very different to that of the Industrial Revolution, some
argue that we are now living in a postmodern society. It is worthwhile stating
here that not everyone supports this view. Marxists, for example, argue that
society is fundamentally the same capitalist system, with the same economic
relations of class exploitation. Sometimes those who believe we are still in the
modern period use the term ‘late modern’ to concede some social and cultural
differences to the nineteenth century.
Supporters of postmodernism argue that society is fundamentally different now
from what it was during the era of industrialisation. They argue it is now
characterised by its preoccupation with consumerism, shopping and style,
which is fundamentally different to the old society centred on production and
work. Postmodernists argue that society has become considerably fragmented
and individualistic – there is so much diversity, allowing people to make
personal choices in almost every field of life. Like interactionism,
postmodernism does not recognise objective reality. Reality is what is inside
people’s heads. Since there are multiple versions of reality, postmodernism
rejects the very idea of ‘grand theories’ like the ones discussed above,
although it is ironically a theory (of sorts) itself.
At the same time people are increasingly using their choices to construct their
identity. Under modernity identity was linked to production: typically the job
you did and consequently the social class you belonged to. In postmodernity
identity is linked to consumption with surface images and style becoming
important defining features. So identity is about wearing labelled clothes
which now conveniently have the labels outside so everyone can see them, the
brand of car you drive, the neighbourhood you live in, the media you consume,
the stylish shopping malls, clubs, pubs and eating places you frequent, even
down to the ‘trophy wife’. Icons and signs are therefore increasingly consumed
for their appearance rather than for their utility.
Many therefore see postmodernity as a superficial society with little depth as
style takes precedence over substance. For example, Jean Baudrillard (1985)
sees the proliferation of signs and symbols as so extensive that reality becomes
confused with fiction. The images are everything, the reality nothing: a
condition Baudrillard terms ‘simulacrum’. His ultimate vision of the future is
one of a society that has ‘imploded’ and become like a black hole with humans
trapped in a type of powerless uniformity, not liberated as other
postmodernists believe by diversity and choice.
Globalisation has resulted in global brands and icons that are recognised
across the world, with people choosing as if from a ‘global cafeteria’ (Bruce,
1999). Global brands like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola are available in all
parts of the globe. In the developing world they are consumed almost in terms
of sharing the ‘American Dream’, that is, their consumption conveys a
symbolic message that the individual is emulating people in the Western world
and is on a journey that implies one day they will have all the materialist
trappings of Western society. The media is increasingly global and offers now
hundreds of channels of choice. Technologies like the internet, email and Skype
all serve to shrink the world in terms of communication into what Marshall
McLuhan (1962) imaginatively described over 50 years ago as a ‘global
village’. Globalisation is also credited with political change such as
encouraging the downfall of the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern
Europe. Some see it as undermining nationalism as a source of identity, but at a
local level nationalism may be strengthening, such as the independence
movement in Scotland. Globalisation has also spread knowledge and ideas.
Postmodernity challenges the grand theories of modernity (including
sociological theory), arguing that there is no such thing as objective truth.
Instead the only truth is the pluralistic character of knowledge. Truth is
relative; reality is what is real to individuals.
It is important to recognise that many academics do not recognise
postmodernity as a distinct and new era that has replaced the period of
modernity. Instead they see society as possibly different, but essentially a
continuation of modernity, perhaps in a mature or twilight stage. Marxists are
particularly critical of postmodernity being a new era.
Pre-literate, tribal societies where myths, legends, superstition and tradition
formed the basis of social life. There was little conception of social change.
Pre-modernity Pre-modern society ended with the decline of medieval society in Europe and
 the development of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century.
Characterised by the industrialisation and urbanisation associated with the
huge shift of population to the cities in the nineteenth century. The evolution of
the nation state and a centralised and increasingly bureaucratic government
state engaged with the welfare of the population. In contrast to the superstition
and traditions of pre-modern society modernity is characterised by the rational
Modernity and scientific thinking that came in with the Enlightenment. Modernity is shaped
by science and reason. Sociology is a product of modernity with its grand
theories (‘big stories’ or metanarratives) derived from the production of
objective knowledge of scientific status, value-freedom and positivism.
Identities are based on social class and work, a person’s place in the
production system. Politics centred on social class divisions.
Society has become a post-industrial society increasingly shaped by service
industries, consumerism and globalisation. Advances in technology and
communications have increased geographical mobility and resulted in a media-
Postmodernity
saturated society. Postmodernity rejects the very idea of ‘grand theories’, since
High/Late
it does not believe there is objective truth, but rather multiple versions of reality:
modernity*
relativism. Identities based on consumption: a person’s spending and lifestyle
choices. Politics become more issue-based: environmentalism, animal rights
and individual concerns over gender, sexuality, ethnicity, age.

Table 1.3 Stages of modernity

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Jean-Francois Lyotard (1984) coined one of the classic definitions of
postmodernism: ‘incredulity toward metanarratives’. By this he means
that no one believes the narratives that technology can solve all our
problems. He describes the postmodern era as having two
characteristics: Firstly, the search for truth is abandoned as
knowledge fragments. No longer is there one great truth (religion,
communism, nationalism, etc.) that unites and justifies all knowledge.
Secondly, statements are judged not by whether they are true, but
whether they are useful.

STUDY TIP
You should be able to look at postmodernity critically. Many
sociologists argue that postmodernists overstate the degree of
change that has occurred in society. So while most ordinary people
appear to accept the postmodernist mantra that ‘class is dead’,
sociological research shows it is still a real and valid concept
impacting on life chances. Consumption may be a more important
driver of identity, but consumption still depends on income.

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
There is no doubt that society has changed quite radically in the past
50 years or so. The workplace has seen a decline in manufacturing
and heavy industry to be replaced by the service sector jobs of a
post-industrial society. Identity has shifted from being production-
based to consumption-based. Culture has become diverse and
fragmented as people pick and mix components from around the
world. People increasingly engage in ‘identity-work’ as they invest time
and effort into constructing their persona through grooming and styling
themselves through consumption and leisure activities. However,
whether this amounts to a new type of society is debatable.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
New ways of studying the family
Castrén and Ketokivi (2015) adopted a new approach to studying
family relationships. They argue that on the one hand the family is
viewed as a subset of any personal relationships. At the same time,
they argue, the family has a special dynamic of its own that requires a
‘language of family’. Their research proposed a qualitative approach
of using both interviews as well as an understanding of how significant
webs of relationships both constrained and enabled people.
They argue that combining these two aspects highlights the complex
family dynamics and lived ambivalences between personal affinities
and relational expectations. Their research examined significant life
events, including marriage and biographical disruptions, such as
bereavement, divorce and illness. They describe their methodology as
relational: bringing together the personal and the more structural
aspects of family dynamics.
By drawing on Norbert Elias’s notion of figuration their research
combines insider and outsider perspectives. Through the use of
interviews they gained qualitative data in relation to the “I” perspective’
as well as using questionnaires and circles maps to build up
knowledge of the structural webs of relationships that exist within all
families.
Adapted from Castrén and Ketokivi (2015)

Questions
1. What does a relational methodology mean with regard to this
research?
2. How did Elias’s notion of figuration influence the methods used?
3. Using the item and your broader sociological knowledge, discuss
some of the problems researchers have in studying family life.

Check your understanding

1. What kind of society was pre-modern?
2. How did the Enlightenment influence the development of
sociology?
3. In what ways can sociology be viewed as a product of modernity?
4. What three key areas is modernity associated with?
5. Why do some sociologists prefer terms like ‘late modernity’ or
‘high modernity’ to postmodernity?
6. Why is postmodernism associated with consumerism and
consumer society?
7. Why does postmodernism reject the idea of grand theory?
8. What is the Marxist response to the idea of a postmodern
society?
9. What does Lyotard mean by metanarrative?
10. Identify three characteristics of postmodern society.

Practice questions
1. Outline and explain two advantages of using a multiple
methodological approach in sociological research.
[10 marks]
Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.

Item A
Because change is ongoing, it is not clear what the future aims,
objectives, content, pedagogy, evaluation and direction of the school
curriculum will be in the future. One of the educational challenges
according to postmodernists is to design a curriculum that both
accommodates and stretches, a curriculum that has the essential
tension between disequilibrium and equilibrium.
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge of research
methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of bringing in a
postmodernist analysis to society.
[20 marks]
Section 4: To what extent can
sociology be regarded as scientific,
objective and value-free?
This section will explore the following debate:
• To what extent can sociology be regarded as a science?

GETTING YOU STARTED

Modernity and the evolution of sociology as a science
The so-called founders of sociology (Comte, Durkheim, Marx and
Weber) lived during the period of modernity when reason and
rational thinking was replacing faith in explaining the world.
Sociology itself can be viewed as a product of modernity and it is no
surprise that these founders each took a great interest in science.
For example, Auguste Comte (1798–1857) argued that a science of
society was possible and advocated that sociology should adopt the
methods of the natural sciences (positivism). Emile Durkheim
(1858–1917) was heavily influenced by the earlier work of Comte.
Durkheim advocated empiricism which involved seeking observable
evidence. He famously employed a comparative historical method to
study the phenomena of suicide. He undertook a systematic
comparison of suicide both between societies and social groups
within societies. Durkheim was seeking to find observable
correlations so that he might establish causal explanations. He
argued that social phenomena could be studied scientifically and that
‘social facts’ could be established and measured the same way as
physical things. Following his research, he concluded that evidence
showed that the personal act of suicide is affected by ‘external’ social
conditions. By embracing the positivistic approach, Durkheim
attempted to objectively show the causal relationship between the
degree of integration in society and the suicide rate.
Karl Marx (1818–1883) shared this positivist view, believing that by
adopting a scientific approach to his work, he could demonstrate the
reasons for change and achieve political progress. However, his
work differs from Durkheim’s in a fundamental way. Marx was no
empiricist; he spent his life studying the invisible economic forces of
capitalism that are not directly observable and only understood at the
level of theory. However, like Durkheim, he too used historical
comparisons as major sources of evidence. In order to develop his
theory of how society evolved in a series of stages or ‘epochs’
(historical materialism), he embarked on a systematic comparison of
historical evidence. Like Durkheim’s, Marx’s methodical approach
could be described as scientific.
Max Weber (1864–1920) also used historical comparisons, such as
his study of world religions. However, he fundamentally opposed the
positivistic approach of Durkheim and Marx. As a modernist he
believed sociology could come up with scientific findings that could
be used for humanity’s benefit; but not by copying the methods of the
natural sciences. Weber’s science was instead interested in
revealing the role of social action. For Weber, science was about the
interpretation of the real world by using verstehen (putting oneself in
the place of the subject matter). Unlike positivists, Weber saw
objective accounts of the world as essentially based on subjective
(ideal-type) interpretations of reality. The ideal-type was developed in
conjunction with Weber’s belief in the possibility of ‘value-free’
sociology. The ideal-type allows for a value-free sociology because it
can be used as a methodological tool to analyse society. It highlights
what to look for by focusing on what is relevant, or a key feature of
society, its institutions or its processes.

Questions
1. Why is the period of modernity associated with scientific
advancement?
2. What does the word empiricism mean?
3. What were Durkheim’s findings from his study of suicide?
4. How was Marx’s approach different to Durkheim’s?
5. Why did Weber reject the scientific approach of positivism?
4.1 To what extent can sociology
be regarded as a science?
Make sure you understand clearly the arguments for
and against sociology as a science. Positivism versus
interpretivism will form the basis of your thinking, along
with the view of the natural sciences not being very
scientific anyway, despite their claim to be.
In attempting to answer this question it is important to establish what the
methodology of the natural sciences is and whether the subject matter of
sociology lends itself to a scientific approach to study. The word science is
derived from the Latin scire, which means ‘to know’. Scientific knowledge is
claimed to be objective because it is derived from a methodology centred on
the collection of facts. The debate that forms the title above has tended to focus
on firstly whether sociology can be a science, followed by the supplementary
question whether it should try to copy the natural sciences. Section 3 showed
that the period of modernity was concerned with the development of scientific
and rational thought and how sociology itself became a product of modernity.
This was because most of the early classical sociologists supported the
scientific approach of positivism per se, while others saw identification of
sociology with science as important in establishing it as a new subject with
credibility.
Positivism developed as an approach that highlighted the similarities between
both the natural and social world and how these respective areas could be
studied scientifically. Commonly shared words like ‘facts’, ‘correlations’,
‘causal relationships’ and ‘laws’ were stressed. In addition, just as natural
phenomena are the product of laws of nature, so people’s ideas and actions
were seen to be caused by the external social forces which make up social
structures. The social philosopher Karl Popper (1959) advocates for all social
research the deductive approach whereby support for hypotheses is
strengthened by constantly trying to disprove or falsify them. Popper believed
that sociology could be viewed as a science provided it subjected itself to
continual testing or falsification. Sociology, he argued, can proceed just like a
natural science, by using the hypothetico-deductive method:

The essence of the hypothetico-deductive method is that hypotheses can be

tested against empirical evidence (data collected) in order to make predictions
based on theories. However, interpretivist sociologists argue that such an
approach is inappropriate because it is fundamentally flawed. Their argument
is that sociology should abandon any attempt to be scientific because firstly
humans have consciousness, and secondly human behaviour is not determined
by observable structural forces. The nature of sociology’s subject matter is
nothing like that of a natural scientist. Instead, they argue, it is the product of
how people interpret the world around them. Consequently, sociologists should
use methods like Weber’s verstehen to understand these interpretations. Their
argument is that good sociologists are able to understand their subjects’ actions
by operating in an empathetic manner towards them, understanding the
structural circumstances that the people they are studying find themselves in,
and taking account of their subjects’ goals.
In response to this criticism, positivists refute the idea that just because humans
have consciousness adopting a scientific approach to their research is invalid.
They argue that while it is true that sociology’s subject does have
consciousness, people do not behave randomly. Rather they behave in a
predictable patterned way that is capable of scientific study. While
interpretivists talk about individuals having ‘free will’ and a voluntarism to act
how they wish, the reality is that they do not; generally behaving in a
predictable and conformist manner. The fact that this predictability of
behaviour is quite marked implies there must be underlying causes (in the form
of structures) to this patterning. This too is capable of being studied, they
argue, in a scientific way by studying the social world at the level of structures
(the family, education, religion, work, etc.). However, as Section 1
demonstrated realists argue that the causes of behaviour are not always
directly observable. Therefore the task of science is not necessarily to take
social structures at face value, but understand their underlying and hidden
characteristics. To achieve this, an interpretive approach may become
necessary to understand people’s behaviour.
The fact that sociology is divided into theoretical perspectives is also used by
its critics to argue that it is not worthy of scientific status. The argument is
simple. If an objective truth could be found about human behaviour then all
sociologists would share this worldview. The fact that there is a fundamental
division within structuralist theory (consensus and conflict) and then between
structuralists and action theorists undermines, they argue, the credibility of
sociology. However, natural scientists do not all sing from the same song book
either! They too have competing ‘world views’. The view of science as a
united body of knowledge was challenged by Thomas Kuhn (1962). He argues
persuasively that scientists belong to distinct scientific communities and often
let their conceptions and assumptions about the world blind them to
contradictions that appear in their investigations. Over time revolutions in
thinking occur and a new paradigm becomes dominant, until it too is replaced.
Understanding the natural sciences also involves making interpretations based
on personal choices, and scientists make judgements at all stages of their
research. Driven by the profit motive of capitalism generally, and specifically
the chemical and arms industries, it is difficult to see natural scientists as
either objective or neutral. Rather, the way in which ‘big science’ works
renders it open to the accusation that it too accumulates ‘knowledge’ in a
selective and partisan way.
The postmodernist position from the above is that if science is not scientific,
then what claim can sociology make to be a science? Postmodernists claim that
all positions, including the natural sciences, are ideological in the sense that
they merely offer a story (in competition with other stories). No form of
knowledge is inherently scientific without facts to back it up. Karl Popper,
with his theory of falsification, makes the useful point that the best anyone can
claim about knowledge is that it is not false. Very rarely, even in science, can
something be shown to be true. So in the absence of hard facts, most science
faces questions about its own scientific credentials. The history of science is
littered with naïve and premature predictions, the concealment of
‘inconvenient’ statistics, and downright cheating. Postmodernists defend their
position by pointing to the refutation that comes from within science itself
about its limitations. The scientific community is highly divided and, as Kuhn
pointed out, a paradigm prevails until it is shot down by a new paradigm.
However, this postmodernist relativist assumption that all knowledge is
ideological becomes problematic, since it implies that all knowledge is equal.
Empiricism is an important concept relevant to this debate. Empiricism is the
view that scientific knowledge derives from evidence. Such evidence in the
natural sciences derives especially from experiments, but in sociology
empirical evidence can come from the field, such as through the collection of
measurable and testable data. All hypotheses and theories must be tested
against collected evidence. Hence, for sociology to be considered a science, it
must be considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
It is worth bearing in mind that whatever methodology is adopted, including
‘scientific’ approaches, it will have an ideological dimension in the sense that
it will be chosen on the basis of the type of knowledge it is able to produce.
Therefore no methodology is completely objective.

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Andrew Tudor (2008) has an important contribution to this debate.
His influential book Beyond Empiricism, originally published in 1982,
argues the case that sociology should be allowed back into the
scientific fold. One of Tudor’s arguments is how philosophers of
science have recently broken with the empiricism that was once so
fundamental to their discipline. At a time when alternative methods
pervade the world of science, Tudor argues that these developments
are significant for sociologists and advocates a new approach paying
detailed attention to questions about the nature of theory, explanation
and demonstration.
CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
Textbooks in the past tended to emphasise the polarised and
oppositional position of positivism versus antipositivism in the field of
methodology. In contemporary sociology, realism has made an
important contribution to the debate recognising that while structures
do exist independently of us, they often have hidden mechanisms, not
directly observable. However, like interpretivists, realism sees reality
as whatever experiences an individual has and therefore sees as real
in their head. Things individuals believe to be real become constructed
as their reality.

STUDY TIP
When considering whether or not sociology is a science, challenge the
simplistic assumption of positivist versus interpretivist positions and
recognise approaches like that of realism which embraces elements
of each approach in order to get closer to the truth.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Feminist analysis of science
Some types of feminism are equivocal about science and technology,
both because of their different positions in relation to gender roles,
and the interaction between gender and other forms of control. Some
feminists have criticised the science establishment for either exploiting
women or failing to meet their needs. In particular they raise concerns
about medical science for its tendency to perpetuate social defined
roles of women as the natural carers and mothers, yet to restrict or
negatively influence the means of carrying out these roles (for
example, natural childbirth, IVF debates.). Science is seen to support
patriarchal control. It is also considered that women are entitled to the
solutions that science offers to fundamental issues (for example,
contraception and abortion).
It clear is that many feminists believe that science has something to
offer women - however, as science is largely in hands of men, it could
be inherently controlling for women. The issue is how (and if) this
oppressive element to science could be eliminated, with the aim of
making science more conducive to women’s lifestyle choices.
Adapted from Bloor (2000)

Questions
1. Why have some feminists been highly critical of science and
technology?
2. Why do some feminists believe science is ‘inherently controlling’?
3. How could the oppressive element of science be removed?
4. Why do you think so few scientists are female, both in school and
the workplace?

Check your understanding

1. What is positivism?
2. What subject area did Durkheim study in a scientific way?
3. Why did Weber argue a scientific approach was inappropriate for
sociology?
4. What is a correlation?
5. What is a causal relationship?
6. What is meant by the deductive approach?
7. Why did Popper advocate falsification?
8. What is the hypothetico-deductive approach to research?
9. What point does Kuhn make about the development of
knowledge?
10. How would postmodernists respond to the idea of sociology being
a science?
Practice questions
1. Outline and explain two advantages of using a quantitative
approach in sociological research.
[10 marks]
Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.

Item A
Auguste Comte founded the doctrine of ‘positivism’ in his Course in
Positive Philosophy (1830) in which he argued that scientific
knowledge should replace religious and metaphysical (theoretical)
thinking. He argued that sociology should adopt the same positivist
approach that had enabled natural scientists to establish laws of
nature.
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge of research
methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of adopting a positivist
approach to studying social phenomena.
[20 marks]
Section 5: The relationship between
theory and methods
This section will explore:
• What is the relationship between theory and sociological methods?
• What theoretical considerations influence research?

GETTING YOU STARTED

Theory and research
The close connection between theory and research lies with each of
their functions. It is often said that the basic impetus for research is
the search for theory since theory development relies on research.
The corollary of this is that research simultaneously relies on theory.
Hegel’s concept of the dialectic can be useful in understanding the
relationship between theory and method. Hegel talked about the
dialectic as the beneficial outcome of new knowledge that derives
from polarised and conflicting ideas (thesis versus antithesis). Such
new knowledge is valued because it takes our understanding of the
social world forward.
Theory therefore determines what data is to be collected and the
nature of the research. In order for theories to be developed it is
necessary to gather evidence data. The purpose of research can
therefore be summarised as either to generate a theory or to test
one. Research can test theories and take our knowledge and
understanding further since findings can sometimes provide
challenges to accepted theories. When the purpose of research is
theory generation then the researcher’s focus will often be influenced
by a selective interpretation of things to look for.
Adapted from Fawcett and Downs (1986)

Questions
1. From the extract and your own knowledge briefly outline the
function of theory.
2. According to the article what are the two functions of research?
3. Does the article imply research can take place without reference
to theory? Explain your answer.
4. What are the implications of the last sentence in terms of bias and
lack of objectivity?
5.1 What is the relationship
between theory and sociological
methods?
When considering the relationship between positivism,
interpretivism and sociological methods, you will need
an awareness of each of these two approaches but
equally how sociologists typically embrace them both in
contemporary research. Because these theoretical
approaches to research were covered in some detail in
Book 1 (pages 12–14 and also on pages 42–3) they
receive a relatively brief coverage here. Refer back to
Book 1 for more on the positivist–interpretivist debate.
Positivism
Most of the early sociologists in the nineteenth century felt that to achieve the
two key conditions of research, rigour in its execution and based on empirical
evidence, then it had to adopt the methods of the natural sciences. This
scientific approach, which had been advocated by Auguste Comte (1798–
1857) somewhat earlier, was known as positivism. It argued that only by
adopting a rigorous methodological approach based on the scientific principles
of collecting objective evidence in the form of facts could sociology stand up
to academic scrutiny. Such research was based on evidence, subject to
verification (it could be tested) and was considered truly objective. The
approach and results were believed to be genuinely value-free and like
scientific research could be cross-referenced, that is, checked against existing
research findings. Positivism researches society by focusing on the macro
level; it does this by observing how the social structures of society influence
and shape the behaviour of individuals.
Interpretivism
However, this approach was challenged by Max Weber (1864–1920) who
made the simple, but obvious, point that sociology’s subject matter was not the
same as that of the natural sciences. Unlike crystals, cells or earthquakes,
human beings have consciousness and are normally aware when they are being
studied. Therefore they tend to stop behaving naturally, simply because they
know they are being researched. To truly understand human behaviour, Weber
advocated a totally new approach. He said we should try to understand
(‘verstehen’) human behaviour by putting ourselves in the shoes of those we
are studying and focusing on interpreting the meanings behind people’s actions.
Weber’s ‘action theory’ therefore focuses on the micro-level of social life –
the way in which individuals interact with one another. Behaviour is seen as
agency driven, being shaped by personal choice and hence voluntaristic, as
opposed to constrained by structures. However, this approach still stresses the
importance of adopting a rigorous and systematic approach, stressing that
making sense of human behaviour derives from a careful interpretation of it –
hence this alternative approach is known as interpretivism.
Realism
As noted in Section 1 (see pages 6–7) sociological researchers rarely fall
neatly into the positivist or interpretivist approaches. The reality is that when
undertaking research sociologists use a combination of the two approaches.
The approach of realism recognises both strengths and weaknesses within each
of positivism and interpretivism and seeks to use their respective strong points.
The analogy of an onion is sometimes used to illustrate the strengths of a realist
approach. Positivist approach is centred on the observation of structures. If
this approach was applied to an onion, it would conclude that onions are dry
and papery. Realists believe that a structured reality exists but, unlike
positivists, disagree that this reality is necessarily observable directly.
Sometimes you have to probe beneath the surface, and if applied to onions
would reveal their moist texture and the ring structure. Realists also identify
with the interpretivist view that people are conscious beings. They are aware
of their position in the world and consequently behave in a meaningful and
voluntaristic way. By doing this they help create the social world and its
structures.
Application to contemporary society
It would probably be fair to say in the twenty-first century that sociology has
risen above the stale and polarised debate of positivism versus interpretivism.
Today most sociological research involves elements of both approaches. This
is known as a realist approach and involves collecting quantitative and
qualitative data, discussed on the next page.

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Michel Foucault is associated with post-structuralism which argues
that to get to the truth researchers need to go beneath the surface of
society. The post-structuralist criticism of the structure/agency
polarisation is that all perspectives actually include both. They
conclude that the sensible conclusion to draw from the structure
versus agency debate is that the agency/structure distinction does not
so much present a problem to be solved but rather is a way of
describing reality.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Tackling underage drinking
Locke and Jones undertook research in order to evaluate an
innovative local authority project in Eastleigh, Hampshire, intended to
reduce underage drinking. The project had been running for over two
years aimed at diverting young people (8–14 years) from drinking. It
sought to do this by educating children early about the effects of their
longer-term drinking habits by providing health advice and raising
awareness of the effects of alcohol.
Their research method involved distributing a questionnaire to local
Year 8 students. This particular year group was sampled as they had
already been involved in the local project while at primary school.
Consent was obtained from parents and teachers.
A survey questionnaire designed to take 10 minutes was completed
by 67 students during tutor group time. Students were asked about
their awareness of the activities of the project and their involvement
with it. Questionnaires were also completed by 39 parents of children
who were taking part in the survey. They answered questions on their
views about the project and whether it affected the behaviour of their
own and other children.
A pilot study resulted in revisions to the surveys. In addition, the
feedback from the pilot was used to develop ideas for the three focus
groups, which were facilitated by project leaders who represented the
various agencies involved with the project.
Quantitative data was generated from the completed questionnaires
and analysed. Qualitative data was obtained from open questions on
the survey and from the focus groups.
Adapted from Locke and Jones (2012)

STUDY TIP
Knowing and understanding the table above will help ensure that you
have a joined-up understanding of the different approaches to
sociological research.

Questions
1. Why was consent for students’ involvement sought from the deputy
head teacher and parents?
2. What is a pilot study?
3. What benefits were gained in this research from using pilot
studies?
4. Why is this research a good example of a realist approach to
undertaking research?
5.2 What theoretical
considerations influence
research?
Sociological theories are either structural or social
action and this can shape research techniques, choice
of research area and interpretation of results.
While researchers should strive to be objective and neutral in their research,
inevitably their prejudices and values may shape what they research, their
approach to the research, their method choice and finally the interpretation of
their findings. For example, Marxists and feminists have an open political
agenda: they would both like to change society and make it more equal, with
regard to class and gender inequalities respectively. Functionalists, however,
will use evidence selectively in order to reinforce their consensus view that a
common set of values exists in society. It is therefore important to remember
that behind a lot of sociological research lies an agenda with an interest in
being supported.

Structural approaches
Structural theorists explain the order and predictability of social life by seeing
human behaviour as learned behaviour shaped by external forces. They are
sometimes referred to as macro-theories which adopt a top-down approach
because of their large-scale vision of seeing society-wide structures or
institutions as the starting point for explaining human behaviour. Examples of
such structures would be family, education, religion, work and the state.
Examples of macro, structural, top-down sociological perspectives would be
functionalism/New Right, Marxism/neo-Marxism and some aspects of
feminism. The favoured methodological approach of structural theorists is
quantitative methods aimed at generating facts and statistics. There is an
overlap between structuralist approach and positivism.
Social action theory approaches
The alternative to the macro, structuralist approach are theories based on the
social action approach, originally conceived by Max Weber. Action theory
sees society not as the starting point, but as the outcome of individuals
engaging in an infinite number of meaningful encounters. It is precisely because
these encounters are meaningful to the people concerned that they create social
order with the semblance of an apparently stable society. These theories argue
that society is generated by the sum of social actions, in which people actively
interpret and give meaning to social encounters.
Because of the focus on the individual (rather than society) as the starting point
from which to make sense of human behaviour, social action theories are
sometimes described as micro-theories generating a bottom-up, small-scale
view. Action theory argues that making sense of society starts with the
extraordinary ability of people to interpret what is going on around them. They
then embrace agency in order to make choices and act in a particular way, in
the light of this interpretation. Examples of micro, agency-based, bottom-up
sociological perspectives are interactionism, postmodernism, and some
elements of feminism. The favoured methodological approach of action
theorists is qualitative methods aimed at generating an understanding of
meaning behind behaviour. Action theory is therefore closely associated with
the interpretivist approach or phenomenology.

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
Phil Hadfield (2006) applied a Marxist analysis to the ‘nocturnal
economy’ of pubs and clubs. Hadfield sought evidence to support his
view that capitalist enterprises, in following their natural profit-making
goal, may end up creating an environment in which certain types of
crime flourish. Hadfield demonstrated the irresponsibility of the drinks
industry which ignored the repercussions of their profit-driven
behaviour.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Using the Millennium Cohort Study
Researchers, from the University of London’s Institute of Education
have found that parents’ social class has a greater impact on how well
their children perform at school than ‘good parenting’ techniques such
as reading bedtime stories. In a study of 11,000 7-year-old children,
drawn from the Millennium Cohort Study, they found that those with
parents in professional and managerial jobs were at least eight
months ahead of pupils from the most socially disadvantaged homes,
where parents were often unemployed.
The team from the Institute of Education took advantage of the
Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) to provide an opportunity to answer
major questions about the social class prospects of children born in
2000–01. The MSC’s sample was selected from all births in a random
sample of electoral divisions, disproportionately stratified to ensure
suitably comprehensive representation across the UK, including areas
of deprivation. In contrast to the preceding studies (in 1946, 1958 and
1970) the MCS sample design took in a whole year’s births, and
covered the whole of the United Kingdom.
There have, so far, been four surveys (also known as ‘sweeps’ or
‘waves’): at age 9 months and at 3, 5 and 7 years. At each sweep
interviews were carried out with both resident parents, collecting a
wide range of socio-economic and health data. The three most recent
sweeps included evaluation of the child’s cognitive development.
Alice Sullivan, the main author of the study, said the research showed
that while parenting is important, a policy focus on parenting alone is
insufficient to tackle the impacts of social inequalities on child
development.
Adapted from Sullivan, Ketende and Joshi (2013)

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
It is rare in contemporary research for researchers to be constrained
into either a purely positivistic or interpretivist approach. Significant
amounts of research involve a triangulation or realist approach,
collecting quantitative and qualitative data.

STUDY TIP
Make sure you are clear on the basic arguments outlined here:
Demonstrating a good understanding of the relationship between
theoretical approaches and methodological approaches will add depth
and content to any writing on this topic.

Questions
1. What was the size of the sample used?
2. Why was the sample ‘disproportionately stratified’?
3. How does the sample design of the MCS differ from previous
cohort studies?

Check your understanding

1. What does empirical mean?
2. What do sociologists mean by structures?
3. What do sociologists mean by the term agency?
4. What did Weber mean by verstehen?
5. What is meant by post-structuralism?
 6. What is meant by a top-down approach?
7. What is meant by a bottom-up approach?
8. What is the realist approach?
9. What did Giddens mean by structuration theory?
10. How would postmodernists respond to the idea of sociology being
a science?

Practice questions
1. Outline and explain two advantages of using a realist approach in
sociological research.
[10 marks]
Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.

Item A
Triangulation refers to the methodological approach of using more
than one method. Even Howard Becker, who was a prominent
interpretive sociologist, supplemented his observational study of
doctors in The Boys in White (1963) with an appendix of statistics to
give it ‘scientific weight’
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge of research
methods, evaluate the strengths and limitations of adopting a
triangulation approach to studying social phenomena.
[20 marks]
Section 6: Debates about
subjectivity, objectivity and value
freedom
This section will explore:
• To what extent is sociology value-free?
• What is the relationship between sociology and social policy?

GETTING YOU STARTED

Value freedom in sociology
Is it possible for sociologists to be completely objective, that is, not
allowing their opinions and feelings to influence their work? A key
question for sociologists like Marxists and feminists is should they
be concerned with changing the social world? If so, this inevitably
entails making value judgements. Firstly, because these conflict
sociologists see the world as unequal, they conclude that the social
world needs changing in order to bring about class and gender
equality. Secondly, by implying how it can be changed for the better,
this is an inevitable reflection of their core values. An alternative
view is that the role of sociology should not try to change society but
merely attempt to make sense of it.
However, here again there is a difference of opinion. Some
sociologists, reflecting the positivist position, argue that it is their
duty to be as objective as possible. Their argument is that sociology
should be like natural science, where the scientific researchers are
not influenced by their values (in theory at least). However, to be
truly objective is harder in sociology because it is about people. An
alternative view is that of the interpretive position which argues that
sociologists should accept that they are bound to be influenced by
their values. Consequently they should be open about these, leaving
the reader to judge how far their work has been influenced by their
values.
Adapted from Blundell and Griffiths (2003)

Questions
1. Explain why some sociological perspectives would argue that
values should be celebrated and fully incorporated into sociology.
2. How is the subject matter and approach of the natural sciences
different to that of sociology?
3. Evaluate the implication behind the claim that every sociological
researcher has been socialised into believing a certain viewpoint.
4. Is it possible for qualitative research to be value-free?
6.1 To what extent is sociology
value-free?
When discussing the value freedom of sociology you
could explore the positivist versus interpretive debates
about how they respectively feel values can be
excluded from research. (You could also include the
postmodernist critique of this since they argue that
everything is ideological and that some sociologists
have a political agenda therefore are happy to express
their values.)
In addressing the question whether sociology can be value-free, the previous
debate about whether sociology is a science inevitably overlaps. The question
actually promotes two supplementary questions: is a value-free sociology
firstly possible and secondly is it a desirable? After all, many sociologists,
such as feminists, Marxists and interactionists are openly value-laden in their
analysis of both their findings and the desired outcome of their research. In
addressing the first question, about the practicalities of a value-free sociology,
we have to consider differing theoretical perspectives and their position as to
whether it is actually possible to produce objective knowledge about the
social world. With the second question, the first one gets thrown on its head.
Here we are looking at how and why value-freedom is discarded in the name
of progress of respective goals: gender equality, class equality or the plight of
the underdog.
Is value-free sociology possible?
Postmodernists would argue that no value-free sociology is possible since all
theoretical positions, including the natural sciences, are ideological. The
portrayal of knowledge, they claim, is little else than story-telling. Adopting
the principle of relativism, no one story is necessarily better than another. It
follows then that the very essence of value freedom is not whether the
sociologist has values, since all human beings are influenced by values of
some sort. Therefore the real question with regard to value freedom is whether
or not the sociologist can suppress their personal values and whether they want
to?
Adopting an objective approach to research was envisaged by the positivist
approach of Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim. By modelling themselves on
the methods of natural science, they embarked on what they claimed to be an
empiricist and objective (and hence value-free) approach to the study of
society. They argued, however, the purpose of studying society scientifically
was to change it for the better. This was not a matter of personal judgement, but
to find the true principles for a good, ordered and integrated society. They
believed that once the laws of society had been discovered then this would
show the way to the natural and correct state of social integration and social
order. This was not imposing the sociologist’s values, but using science for the
establishment of a better society. To achieve this Comte referred to sociology
as the ‘Queen of the sciences’ with sociologists as the ‘priests’ of a golden age
of proven truth!
The objective principles of positivism were actively embraced in the twentieth
century by the structural consensus theory of functionalism. It advocated
methodological objectivity (objectivism) which argued that to understand how
society worked it was only necessary to study its social structures. However,
the counter view of methodological subjectivity (subjectivism), shared by
interpretivists, fundamentally criticises the idea that only ‘social structures’
should be studied. The interpretivist view maintains that human behaviour can
only be understood through understanding the motivations and meanings that lie
behind individual’s actions.
These American functionalists actively distanced themselves from suggesting
any reforms of society; it was not the role of sociology to prescribe how
society ought to be. Instead they threw themselves into the process of
collecting facts. For them, only the collection of facts through the adoption of a
scientific positivistic approach could be truly objective and establish the truth
about society. Adopting a scientific approach meant sociology must be neutral,
not take sides and produce value-neutral knowledge. So in contrast to the
classical positivists of the nineteenth century, who saw themselves as the
architects of the perfect society, twentieth-century positivists saw themselves
as mere information gatherers. However, they were misguided to equate their
objective approach with value freedom, since all sociologists are influenced
by values of some sort. Secondly, to view sociology merely as ‘information
gathering’ has been described as naïve and even immoral.
The reality of sociology in twentieth-century USA was that ‘value-free’
sociologists were increasingly used by government and big business to
promote highly value-laden causes. For example, the US army employed
sociologists in Project Camelot (1964). Sociologists were located in Latin
American countries in order to reveal the origins of social instability. The USA
had a vested political and economic interest in stability in Latin America and
stated it had a ‘responsibility to assist friendly governments in dealing with
active insurgency problems’. Another example of value-laden scientific
research was that involving the eugenics movement in the 1920s and 1930s.
Eugenics influenced the United States immigration policy and served to justify
the institutionalised racism that prevailed, especially in the southern US states.
Sociologists were also used by big business in ways that promoted profits. For
example, the US Ford Corporation employed sociologists to investigate and
reduce industrial disputes. The criticism of this kind of research is that it is not
value-free. Sociologists, who saw themselves simply as ‘information
gatherers’, were actually employed to undertake research that reflected the
values of their employer.
Conflict sociologists like C. Wright Mills (1956) and Alvin Gouldner (1962)
attacked this ‘positivistic’ information gathering for what it was. Mills, for
example, argued that it was impossible for sociologists to avoid values and
implying them in their work. According to Gouldner these ‘amoral positivists’
were engaging in cynical self-improvement: attempting to address their
degraded status and acquire professional and academic credibility. The
establishment ceased to see sociologists as a threat and began using them for
their own purposes. Gouldner points out that by refraining from criticising the
agenda and the tasks they were set, the sociologists became morally complicit.
By insisting on value freedom they were declaring a clear message ‘we will
not rock the boat’ or ‘bite the hand that feeds us’. Either way this is a very
value-laden approach.
Is value-free sociology desirable?
Following Gouldner’s lead, much of sociology in the 1960s and 1970s
rejected the inherent conservatism of positivism/functionalism. Instead it
argued for a more radical and committed approach to social life. This has
taken one of two forms. Firstly, inspired by the work of Max Weber and his
social action theory, interpretive sociology argued that truth could only be
gained by adopting subjective research methods to understand meanings.
Weber agreed with the principle that no values can be regarded as ultimately
correct, but felt the sociological researcher should still be a responsible
citizen. The investigator could be value-free in the choice of topic or the
application of knowledge, just so long as neutral testing procedures are used.
Ethical and political responsibility cannot be shirked. Weber believed that it
was possible for sociologists to be personally objective in their research and
that knowledge could therefore be cleansed of values. However, critics argue
that the problem with this approach is that it runs the risk of being subjective
and prone to the personal biases of the researcher. In addition, the choice of
subject matter and the use of knowledge are both areas where values must
unavoidably be involved.
One response by interactionists to this criticism was to openly declare their
values. For example, Howard Becker advocated a ‘compassionate sociology’
that took the side of the underdog. He argued, firstly, that we can only know
about social behaviour by seeing reality from the point of view of the actor.
Secondly, that the most disadvantaged in society are only ordinary people
subject to the impact of unfavourable circumstances. Becker argued that since
the world is generally seen from the powerful (overdog’s) point of view, it is
the obligation of sociologists to balance things up by taking the underdog’s
point of view. However, some Marxist sociologists have become
contemptuous of what they consider the rather romantic and sentimental
approach of the interactionists. For example, Gouldner has attacked Becker for
taking too ‘safe’ an attack on the inequalities of power: [Becker] looked at
people ‘on their backs’ (the underdog) rather than those ‘fighting back’ (the
radical).
Marxist conflict sociology advocates a self-conscious politically radical
approach. Generally, conflict sociologists argue that sociologists should be
true to their own values, by seeing the world as wrongly unequal. Values must
therefore be followed through and the wrongs of capitalism identified and
righted. Although the French sociologist Louis Althusser (2005) saw sociology
as a science, he saw its role as to explicitly expose the ways in which the
ruling capitalist class dominate and control society. He therefore saw the role
of sociology as promoting class consciousness and exposing the truth about the
inequalities and unfairness of capitalism.
The origins of feminist theory in sociology lie in the fact that until the 1960s
gender issues and inequalities were rarely discussed within the discipline.
Along with the Women’s Liberation Movement, academic feminist writing
developed to become an indispensable part of critical sociology. Section 1
pointed out that feminism is both structural and interpretive. Like the Marxist
perspective it is political – its goal is to change society for the better – and
like interpretive sociology it is compassionate, focusing on the ‘underdog’
position of women. Thus, feminist sociology is openly value-laden. In
addition, feminists see knowledge as power, and actively promote a feminist
perspective to challenge ‘malestream’ knowledge that abounds in all academic
and popular areas. Feminists clearly make no apology for their overt values,
arguing they are necessary in the furtherance of the emancipation of women.
The New Right perspective may also be viewed as value-laden in its overt
support for neo-liberal principles in favour of the free market and its
opposition to all forms of government intervention, including the welfare state.
Funding is a concept that is relevant to this debate about value freedom. We
saw in Section 4 how access to funding can influence the choice of topic a
sociologist researches. Those funding research usually have a pre-conceived
idea of the findings they expect. This can therefore influence how the
sociologist interprets the data and the selection of what findings to include in
the report. The values of the researcher clearly become compromised if this
happens.

Evaluation
It is worth remembering that a significant amount of sociological research
results in criticism about the quality of its validity, reliability and
representativeness. Therefore, this has implications for the extent to which it is
purely objective and value-free. It is easier for the natural scientist to practise
methodological objectivity because their subject matter does not have
consciousness.

KEY SOCIOLOGIST
The classical early sociologist Auguste Comte has an important
contribution to make to this debate. Comte set himself the task of
establishing sociology as a ‘positive science of society’ and argued
that by adopting a positivist approach society could be studied in a
value-free way in order to reveal the laws of social life. He predicted
that with this accumulation of objective knowledge that sociologists
would come to understand and control human behaviour, eradicate
social problems, and produce a society that would benefit all.

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
Sociologists know they will not obtain government funding for certain
sensitive areas of research, including researching poverty, inequalities
in income and wealth, and inequalities in life chances associated with
social class. By not providing funding for the research of these areas
governments are effectively banning the study of areas it finds
politically embarrassing. Government funding of research is clearly
value-laden as they will only fund research that has a potentially
positive outcome.

STUDY TIP
It is important to have a good knowledge and understanding of both
sides of this debate. Figure 1.10 shows methodological objectivity is
normally associated with structuralist perspectives, whereas
methodological subjectivity is normally associated with interpretivist
perspectives.
Different perspectives
Postmodernism makes an important contribution to this debate. Postmodernists
argue that all sociology is value-laden since knowledge is culturally
constructed. Postmodernists argue that all sociological positions are value-
laden because they are little more than ideological story-telling. However, as
Jürgen Habermas notes, the postmodernist position lacks any claim to validity
since by refuting all sociological theories as ‘metanarratives’ they end up
creating a metanarrative of their own!

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Improving pupil attainment through parental
involvement
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) has found that
there was a reasonable case to be made for parental (family)
involvement in their children’s education having ‘a causal influence on
children’s school readiness and subsequent attainment’ (Carter-Wall
and Whitfield, 2012: p.5), compared with all the other interventions it
reviewed.
This research points to four areas of parental involvement which have
had success: improving at-home parenting, involving parents in school,
engaging parents in their children’s learning and in their own learning,
and aligning school–home expectations.
The research identifies the key features of successful interventions in
these areas, but could not isolate which of these, singly or in
combination, actually led to improved educational outcomes for young
people. However, the researchers suggest the greatest improvements
appear to be gained from providing parents with better information
and access to appropriate support and advice. They conclude that
simply raising parents’ aspirations for their children are unlikely to
result in real advances, whereas those which ‘enable and encourage
parents actively to engage with their child’s learning and the education
system more generally’ are usually successful (Carter-Wall and
Whitfield, 2012: p.6).
The researchers acknowledge that robust evidence for the impact of
extra-curricular activities and mentoring on students’ achievements is
lacking, but suggest that these kinds of intervention offer great
potential.
For example, the JRF research gave examples of practices that
resulted in successful mentoring of young people. There is some
evidence that mentoring results in improved achievement, although
how or why the improvement occurred was not made clear in the
evaluations.
The JRF studies propose that if AAB-type strategies (those that focus
on the aspirations, attitudes and behaviours of disadvantaged children
and their families) are to be cost-effective, then carefully designed
and rigorously evaluated funding should be concentrated on parental
involvement, extra-curricular provision and mentoring. They do not rule
out other creative approaches, but argue that such interventions
should have a strong evidence base, with in-built robust evaluations of
student achievement and that they should be trialled at a small-scale
level before it is decided to apply them on a larger scale.
Adapted from Egan (2013)

Questions
1. What intervention was found to be unsuccessful if implemented?
2. In what ways could parents be encouraged to actively engage with
their child’s learning and the education system more generally?
3. What were the findings about mentoring?
4. What concerns does the JRF raise about future research and
interventions?
6.2 What is the relationship
between sociology and social
policy?
Social policy has a complex relationship with
sociological research.

Social policy refers to the activities and legislative outcomes of central and
local government and their agencies. They generally have some bearing on
human welfare. The relationship between sociology and social policy is a
complex one. Ken Roberts (2012) talks of a golden age in the 1940s and 1950s
when sociologists actively supported reforms of the newly established welfare
state. At the time, he claims sociology had the ear of governments and could
recommend policy changes on the basis of the extensive research it was
undertaking to measure the ways and extent people’s lives were being
improved. Therefore sociology can claim some credit for raising awareness
about social problems and instigating a social policy response from the
government. For example, some feminists claim that raising awareness about
gender inequality led to the Equal Pay Act (1970) and the Sex Discrimination
Act (1975). Cynics might respond that these two important acts of legislation
came in because they attracted a lot of votes from women.
Therefore, others see social policy influenced primarily by other factors such
as ideology, self-interest and electoral popularity (policies that are vote-
winning). Social policy can be influenced by sociological research, but only
when it suits and benefits central or local government. For example, the
political preoccupation with winning elections results in the dismissal of any
sociological findings that are not vote winners. In addition, there has been a lot
written recently about the influence of lobbyists. Government policy is
increasingly shaped these days by powerful and well-funded interest and
pressure groups, rather than sociologists. Therefore it is big business and rich
individuals who shape social policy, rather than humble academic
sociologists.
In addition to the issue of to what extent sociology does influence social
policy, there is another debate about what the relationship between social
policy and sociology should be. On the one hand, the broadly consensus
theorists argue that sociology should underpin social policy and contribute to
the reform of society. In other words sociologists should work with
government and its agencies to make society better. However, critical
sociologists are critical of the relationship between sociology and social
policy and argue that the role of sociology should be to bring about radical
change rather than piecemeal reforms. Finally, some argue that since sociology
is an academic subject, its relationship to social policy should be independent.
The value of sociology lies with its specific use-value to the discipline itself.
For example, postmodernists argue that sociology has no contribution to make
to social policy. This is because, they argue, its function is simply to make
sense of individual lives. They reject the usefulness of sociological
knowledge, especially in the form of metanarratives, since they challenge any
modernist idea that knowledge can be used to make society better. This is
because they do not recognise the concept of an orderly society in the first
place; one that is capable of being studied and reformed by the scientific
rational method.

Consensus theorists attempt to explain the basis of sociology’s relationship to

social policy in terms of how knowledge reflects and shapes the consensus,
shared values and a reformist response from the authorities. The social theorist
Anthony Giddens argues that one of the key roles of sociology is to inform
policy makers and assess the results of policy in order to promote an
understanding of society. Giddens himself is credited as being influential in
policymaking. His work on the ‘third way’ was very influential and shaped
many of the policies of Tony Blair’s New Labour government.
Sometimes pioneering sociology highlights issues previously hidden or
ignored and demands a response. So it is suggested that the work of Peter
Townsend (1966) on poverty was responsible for social policies like the
minimum wage and family and working tax credits. Townsend claimed to have
‘rediscovered’ poverty in a Britain which had assumed poverty had largely
been abolished. He redefined poverty as ‘relative’ when ‘resources are so
seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family’ rather
than the old-fashioned view of lacking basic necessities. It is claimed by his
supporters that Townsend’s ‘relative poverty’ raised the profile of the poor,
resulting in a social policy response. However, governments have never taken
poverty seriously – partly because the poor have a notoriously low turn-out at
elections. Instead, it is a problem they like to sweep under the carpet and
pretend is not significant, or victim-blame by putting the responsibility for
poverty onto the poor themselves (such as being lazy, feckless, work-shy and
welfare dependent). If Townsend was responsible for the minimum wage and
tax credits, these were introduced in 1999 and 2003 respectively, at least 33
years after his research! In addition, following pressure from employers the
minimum wage has always been set at too low a level to help eradicate low-
wage poverty. Pressure to cut welfare, and to make firms rather than the
government subsidise low wages, led to plans to cut working family tax credits
with the National Living Wage by 2020.
Sociologists have a long list of social policy reforms they claim sociology has
been at least partly responsible for bringing in. For example, it is said that
sociological research into attainment levels resulted in the introduction of the
comprehensive school system. However, the evidence suggests that it was
pressure from middle-class parents that was the key driver of this reform.
Because there were so few grammar school places available, the middle class
fought for the better of two evils. Sending their children to a comprehensive
school was infinitely better than the secondary modern schools. Thus, ex-
grammar school champion of the middle classes, Conservative Secretary of
State for Education Margaret Thatcher (who had no truck with sociologists,
whom she despised), was responsible for establishing the majority of
comprehensive schools in the 1970s. Another example of a government
choosing to ignore clear-cut evidence was the dismissal of the ‘Black Report’
(1980) into inequalities in health. Despite Sir Douglas Black making 37 far-
reaching policy recommendations the government partly implemented just two
and again resorted to victim-blaming for their explanation of health
inequalities. Despite clear-cut evidence to the contrary, people were accused
of bringing about their own poor health through unhealthy behaviour and
lifestyle choices.
Nonetheless sociologists argue that research can still contribute to effective
social policies. Sociologists have always championed marginalised and
stigmatised groups. Consequently sociologists may take some credit for the
Equality Act (2010), designed to criminalise discrimination and harassment
related to certain personal characteristics such as gender, race, age and
disability. A logical outcome of the spirit of the Equality Act is the right for
same-sex couples to get married which became effective in 2014. Sociologists
can also take some credit for highlighting the extent and impact of domestic
violence, resulting in the Home Office instructing the police to treat domestic
violence as seriously as any other form of violence.
Marxists are fundamentally opposed to all forms of social policy on the
grounds that they are an ineffective and inefficient response to the injustices of
capitalism. They also serve to muddy the waters; by appearing to be
benevolent they serve to promote a sense of false consciousness. So despite
some social policies reflecting substantial expenditure, they are criticised by
Marxists because people lose sight of the fact that the problems social policy
seeks to remedy are actually caused by the economic system of capitalism that
underpins them. In treating the symptoms with social policy, the state promotes
false consciousness and deflects any radical thinking or action to transform
society.
Marxists are therefore very critical of the idea that sociology should help
governments to address social problems, arguing it is not sociology’s role to
engage in reforming society. For example the criminology theory of Left
realism, developed by Jock Young and John Lea, sought to provide a theory of
crime that would provide credible and relevant solutions for the government to
limit the harm crime was doing to lives of particularly the poorer members of
society. However, traditional Marxist sociologists responded that Lea and
Young had ‘sold out’ implying they had accepted the role of sociology was to
help formulate social policy. It should not be the role of sociologists to help
governments, Marxists argued, especially when crime exists because of the
unfairness and inequalities of the capitalist system. Unless capitalism is
abolished, crime will always be present as an issue anyway, so any reforms
are just scratching the surface of the problem. In addition, by focusing on
working-class offenders Left realism diverts attention from the greatest rule
breakers in society: white-collar criminals and the corporate crime of big
business.
KEY SOCIOLOGIST
C. Wright Mills (1956) has an important contribution to make towards
this debate. He argued that sociology should be more than the
accumulation of facts. Instead it is the duty of sociology to not only
explain social problems but also to offer policy solutions.

The concept of social quality is important to this debate. It was devised by

Alan Walker and is designed to provide an independent rationale for social
policy in Europe. The concept comprises social inclusion/exclusion, social
cohesion/anomie, socio-economic security/insecurity, and social
empowerment/subordination.

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION
John Williams (2013) argues that a lot of contemporary social policy
and new legislation is shaped by sociology. He cites the examples of
public inquiries into the racism and the murder of Stephen Lawrence,
the policing of the Hillsborough football stadium disaster, and the
Leveson inquiry into media regulation as all influenced by materials
and evidence provided by sociologists.

STUDY TIP
Remember the postmodernist idea that it is impossible for sociology
to contribute to social policy. Because they reject the modernist
position that knowledge can be used to make society better, the only
contribution of sociology is therefore to make sense of individual lives.
Different perspectives
Marxists argue that social policies provide ideological legitimisation for
capitalism. Social policies, like welfare provision, give capitalism a ‘human
face’ and promote false consciousness by implying that the government actually
cares about the people. What people forget is that all welfare is funded out of
taxation, so they are financing it themselves.

RESEARCH IN FOCUS
Closing the attainment gap in education
An example of sociological research driving social policy is that of
Sosu and Ellis (2014). In their research they outlined what teachers,
schools, local and national government and other education providers
can do to close the education attainment gap associated with poverty
in Scotland. They also looked at attempts that have been made to
tackle the issue and considered the evidence for which ones have
proved successful. The research makes recommendations for
educators and policy makers about what is likely to work. In terms of
methodology, the research took place in three main phases: initial
trawl, screening and selection and analysis and synthesis.
Initial trawl: involved a systematic search of existing databases using
pre-specified search terms such as ‘poverty and educational
attainment’. A snowballing strategy that involved following up
interesting references cited in articles retrieved was also adopted.
Electronic searches were complemented by email and telephone
enquiries with key stakeholders, ensuring comprehensive coverage of
existing evidence.
Screening and selection: pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria
were used to determine which materials were selected for inclusion in
the final report. The criteria were guided by the terms of reference of
the project and judgements about the quality/strength of the evidence
to support claims made.
Analysis and synthesis: This third stage involved identifying and
summarising key elements/findings from each review. It also
addressed gaps in existing evidence. It entailed bringing together the
key issues addressed in order to construct a viewpoint. The focus
was on specific recommendations for actions to become social policy
in order to reduce the attainment gap between children from the
poorest and richest backgrounds.
Adapted from Sosu and Ellis (2014)

Questions
1. What were the three stages of the research?
2. In the ‘initial trawl’ what was meant by the ‘snowballing strategy’?
3. In the second stage what criteria guided the selection process of
materials?
4. What became the focus of the third stage?

Check your understanding

1. The word science is derived from the Latin scire, what does this
word mean?
2. Explain how sociology itself became a product of modernity.
3. What did Karl Popper mean when he advocated the deductive
approach?
4. What did Thomas Kuhn mean by paradigms of knowledge?
5. Name three sociological perspectives that can be value-laden in
their approach to research.
6. What was the approach adopted by classical sociologists like
Comte and Durkheim?
7. Why did Gouldner refer to the twentieth-century sociologists as
‘amoral positivists’?
8. What is meant by the term social policy?
9. What type of sociologist argues sociological research should
 underpin social policy and contribute to the reform of society?
10. Why are Marxists fundamentally opposed to reformist social
policies?

Practice questions
Read Item A below and answer the questions that follow.

Item A
Any study of education cannot be purely scientific since all
researchers will bring pre-conceived ideas to their work. It is not
possible for any researcher to completely divorce themselves from
attitudes and values derived from their own schooling experience, their
attitudes about education as parents (if they have children) and their
personal values about the government’s education policies.
Applying material from Item A and your knowledge of research
methods, evaluate two reasons why sociological research cannot be
value-free.
[20 marks]
To what extent can sociology claim to be a science?
[10 marks]