Читать книгу Sociology - Anthony Giddens - Страница 72

What do the debates on the nature of science tell us about the scientific status of sociology? First, science cannot be defined by any one method or a fixed set of methodological rules. In practice, scientists adopt a variety of methods in their pursuit of knowledge. Pawson (2013: xi) argues that:

If science was merely a matter of routine and compunction, of compliance and rule following, it would be pre-programmed – done already or awaiting completion in the pipeline. In reality, scientific research undergoes constant change as fresh discoveries are made and new fields open up. Accordingly, methodological rules cannot be carved in stone … Each time the researcher dreams up a project, responds to a tender, enters the field, draws conclusions, makes observations and pens a paper, that individual will seed minute modifications to the methodological rules.

Pawson’s argument applies to both natural and social sciences, though he does not accept Feyerabend’s anarchistic conclusion. Instead, he argues that methodological rules are always in a process of development, but they are not irrelevant altogether.

Second, although there is no single scientific method or methodological principle (which was sought by philosophers), science does involve certain key elements, including theoretical thinking, the logical assessment of arguments, systematic empirical investigation, rigorous analysis of data, and a commitment to publish research findings to develop a cumulative body of knowledge. This means that the social disciplines, sociology and psychology among them, must be considered scientific because both quantitative and qualitative research involves all of these elements.

However, third, we should not expect sociologists to adopt exactly the same methods of investigation as the natural sciences. This is because people, social groups and societies are, in significant ways, very different from the other animals and events in the physical world. In particular, humans are self-aware beings who confer meaning and purpose on what they do. We cannot even describe social life accurately unless we first grasp the meanings that people apply to their actions. For instance, to describe a death as a ‘suicide’ means knowing what the person in question was intending when they died. If a person steps in front of a car and is killed, objective observation may suggest suicide, but this can only be established if we know that their action was not accidental. Intention and meaning are crucial explanatory features of human action, which sociologists cannot ignore if their accounts are to be valid.

Fourth, in acknowledging this significant difference between the social and natural sciences, it may appear that sociologists are at a distinct disadvantage. Trying to ‘get inside the mind’ of an individual is notoriously problematic and seems like an additional complication. Yet there may be a major benefit. Sociologists are able to ask questions directly of those they study – other human beings – and get responses they and other researchers understand. Biologists, for instance, have no such direct communication with the animals whose behaviour they try to interpret. The opportunity to converse with research participants who can confirm or criticize the researcher’s explanations means that sociological findings are, potentially, more reliable (different researchers would arrive at the same results) and valid (the research actually measures what it is supposed to) than many in the natural sciences.

At the same time, studying human beings brings problems that do not trouble natural scientists. People who are aware that their activities are being scrutinized may alter their usual behaviour and opinions, thus invalidating the researcher’s conclusions. Participants may consciously or unconsciously manage the presentation of their self and even try to ‘assist’ the researcher by providing the responses they think are being sought. Sociologists must be aware of these problems and devise strategies to counter them. Scientists studying the behaviour of chemicals or frogs do not have to deal with this additional problem.

To conclude, we can agree with philosophers of science that there are criteria which distinguish scientific work from other types of inquiry, though these criteria are not fixed but change over time, alongside ongoing research programmes and studies. We can also agree with historians that science takes place within communities and broad theoretical frameworks or paradigms. Sociology has moved forward through competitive struggles between rival perspectives and, over time, the number of perspectives and theoretical syntheses has increased. Yet, in spite of this variety and competition, and against the anarchist position taken by Feyerabend, there remains a logic to the research process that is common across the majority of sociological studies, and this is outlined in the next section.