“Sociology
is a multiple-paradigm science-with a full range of debates not only on
sociological perspective but also on whether or not sociology can truly be as
objective as science is presumed to be”(Ritzer, 103). Science is built on facts
and as time goes on some of these facts can be found to be mistaken with new
evidence, but however confidence in some facts increase with new and additional
evidence. But sociologists gather information with their senses and also have
adopted a scientific method to aid in analyzing and explaining the society as a
whole. I believe the ways and step taken to gather information by sociologists and
scientists are different but similar to each other. So can sociology be as
objective as science?
Pertaining
to global warming and the notion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change that human activities are the major force behind it, scientist tend to experiment
the cause of global warming and truly if human activities are the major causes
while on the other hand sociologist experiment and analyze the motivations and
actions that affects global warming. The Colbert report examines the validity
of the scientific method used to derive the conclusion that late night
television caused depression. This illustrates the importance of both scientist
and sociologist capable of making mistakes with their findings and suggests
that experiments whether big or small should be conducted thoroughly and
accurately to provide reliable results. It should also be repeated with the
subjects to whom the study is about to ensure that the same results are the
outcome of the experiment.
Science
and sociology are both ways of deriving an explanation for events and causes of
those events. But sometimes there are glitches in the process of gathering the
information needed to conduct an experiment. Participants in sociology may not
respond to some questions and if they do respond it may not be the correct
answer. And also sometimes the sociologist may insert themselves into the lives
of these individuals like Sudhir did in a Gang leader for a day. Also sometimes
it might be hard to get individuals to participant in surveys and research
studies. Also with science a researcher might get data that has been tempered
with, which can cause complications in the experiment. So to answer the
question of whether Sociology is as objective as Science, I would say no
because both have their own way of gathering information needed to conduct an
experiment to analyze their topics. They are also similar because they try to
gather accurate results so that their predictions will support their
hypothesis.
In Ritzer’s article Researching the Social World, he raises an important question “what obligation do sociologists have to research participants and society as a whole? (p 103). I believe they have the difficult task of explaining how individuals operate in society and the interactions that occur between individuals as a result (or not) of the society they live in. Furthermore, sociologist have to do so objectively whereby any preconceived notions, bias or motives that they hold towards their research must not interfere with the research they set out to pursue. They must also represent their subjects in a manner whereby the audience (who hope to gain some understanding from this research) believe that the published results are authentic. In Sudhir Ventakesh’s quest to understand gangs and drug dealers, I believe his authenticity lies in his daily interactions with the gang he was observing. However, in the same way that sociologists are skeptical about the societies they research, viewers who left comments were skeptical about his motives in researching this gang; was it solely for his career advancement? Similarly, this raises questions such as: were his depictions of gang life in his book a true reflection of the actual gangs or were they accented with his perception as an outsider from a “mainstream” background’s perspective? Also, how objective could he be when was sympathetic to this lifestyle in great comparison to his? While there is no easy way of knowing this, I believe that with emotions and personal beliefs that humans have, objectivity becomes difficult in depicting someone else’s practices or culture.
ReplyDeleteUpon watching Sudhir Ventakesh's video, I too was a bit skeptical about how objective he could be under such conditions. He notes that he felt it was easy to connect with the gang leader because of his background, (college education, worked in mainstream America), but could this make Ventakesh biased? To a certain degree, I think it is impossible to be truly objective in sociology. It is extremely difficult to ignore personal opinion and bias, no matter how "good" of a researcher you are. For example, it would be interesting to look at how Ventakesh's previous perceptions of gangs and gang culture influenced his findings (and how these perceptions changed.) Additionally, I wondered how honest the gang members were, knowing that their activities were being observed. How valid is this study if the participants acted in a way that they thought that the researcher expected?
ReplyDeleteIn addition to being objective, sociologists have certain ethical standards to adhere to. For instance, I wonder if the people that were studied gave Ventakesh permission to conduct research involving them?
After reading the Ritzer’s article Researching the Social World I realized that the video on Sudhir Ventakesh's study of gangs does not follow the rules of proper objective scientific research laid out in Ritzer’s article. According to Ritzer’s article during an observational research is the" systematic watching, listening to, and recording what takes place in a natural social setting over a period of time"(pg 84). In Sudhir's study, the gangs knew that he was researching them and I believe that is played a role in his findings. Sudhir's emotions concerning the gang and their actions might have shown through his research because he was an integrated part of that community. He developed a relationship with his study participants. In a true scientific research, researchers do not have emotionally ties towards their participant so that it does not interfere with their research. For Sudhir's findings and book to be relied on as a objective scientific research, the gangs should not have know his intention for the research. Ritlzer explained how when conducting an observational study if the subjects know that they are part of a research they might behave in a way that is out of character for them in order to present themselves in a matter that correlates with the study. So as Sudhir was a part of the gang and believed he is living life through their eyes, the gang leader might have just told him things or showed him certain aspects of his life in order to present a certain illustration of the type of life he lives. His emotions may not always be genuine.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Millicent belief that sociology can not be seen as objective Science. Since sociologist study society and how different factors affect the people that live within, it is hard to follow a set of rules for every social study. Their findings might be based more on their own judgment within their professional fields rather than actual facts. While conducting these researches sociologist might be reaching for a particular result and might unconsciously produce the results they desire.
I also agree that sociology is not as objective as science. Like Bokie and Jessica mentioned, it is difficult to not correlate personal opinions, ideas, and emotions into the research. For instance, in the “Gang Leader for a Day” video, Ventakesh stated that he never predicted what gang life was like and then later developed a close connection with one of the gang leaders to further his research. I was unconvinced because his role in the gangs may have caused him to sympathize with the gangs, especially since he mentioned that he felt very safe and the members of the gangs trusted him. I think for sociology to be objective, research should be done from a distance. However, this would lead to inaccurate results.
ReplyDelete