Objectivity and Values

• In a nutshell

  Positivists believe society could be improved through objective scientific knowledge, free from values of the researcher. Interpretivists, on the other hand, argue it is impossible for sociology to be value-free due to how research is subjective and influenced by values in all aspects. For instance, the sociologists own values influence the method they may use. Alternatively, Weber fits between the two and argues sociology cannot be free from values in the research process, but can be free from values when collecting data.
• POSITIVISTS


  Sociology can be studied free of values because it is objective.

  ​

  Myrdal and Gouldner - sociologists should not only identify their values, but also ‘take sides’, espousing the interests of actual groups.

  ​

  It is undesirable to be value-neutral. Without values to guide research, sociologists are merely putting their services up for sale.
• WEBER


  Sociology can be value-free once the research process has been chosen, but the values need to be explicitly stated.

  ​

  Values as a guide to research - we can only select areas of study in terms of their value relevance to us.

  ​

  Data collection and hypothesis testing - sociologists must be objective as possible when actually collecting the facts (eg. not asking leading questions, the hypothesis must succeed or fall solely on whether it fits the observed facts).
• WEBER 2

  Values in the interpretation of data - facts need to be set in a theoretical framework to understand their significance. This is influenced by the sociologist's values, which must be stated explicitly.

  ​

  Values and the sociologist as a citizen - sociologists are citizens, they cannot dodge the moral issues their work raises or the uses it is put to by hiding behind ‘value freedom’.
• INTERPRETIVISTS


  Sociology cannot be studied free of values because it is subjective. The sociologist's values are influenced by:

  ​

  Choice of research topic

  Choice of method

  Funding body