Sociology & Value Freedom (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Sociology & objectivity - the case for value freedom

• Science aims to produce true, objective knowledge — knowledge that is free from personal bias

• This raises a key question:

  • If sociology is a science, can it be value-free? In other words, can sociologists keep their own beliefs, opinions, and prejudices completely out of their research?

    • Critics argue this is impossible, as sociologists are humans with values studying other humans with values — bias is inevitable

    • Supporters believe it is both possible & desirable to keep values out of research; it is the only way to produce scientific, unbiased knowledge about society

Early positivists

• Comte (1830) – Saw sociology as a 'religion of scientific truth'

• He believed sociologists could discover what was best for society objectively and with scientific certainty

• Durkheim – Argued that sociology should be like the natural sciences, finding objective truths to improve society

• Marx – Viewed himself as a scientist; he believed historical analysis could reveal the laws of social development

20th-century positivists (functionalists)

• Modern positivists promoted 'objectivity through neutrality'

• They argued that:

  • sociology’s role is to pursue knowledge and truth without bias

  • sociologists should see facts as they are, not as they wish to see them

  • it is not sociology’s job to fix society

  • it is not the sociologist’s concern how research is used by those in power

  • who funds the research should not matter — data should be collected in the most neutral way possible

  • personal prejudices, tastes, and beliefs should not influence the research process or interpretation of findings

Evaluation of value freedom

Strengths

• Boosts scientific credibility

  • Being value-free helps sociology appear more like the natural sciences

  • Unbiased research is respected by the public and academic community, raising sociology’s status as an objective discipline

• Enables replicability and transparency

  • If researchers keep personal values out, their methods and findings can be checked and repeated by others

  • This encourages accountability and increases trust in the results

• Protects against political bias or propaganda

  • A value-free approach avoids the perception that sociology is promoting a political agenda

  • This reduces the risk of findings being dismissed as ideology and shields researchers from pressure to produce results that please those in power

Criticisms

• Influence of funding and careers

  • Gomm (1982) argues that value freedom is impossible because whoever funds the research controls the values behind it

  • Researchers may also self-censor to avoid upsetting powerful individuals or organisations who could damage their career prospects

    • E.g., Government-funded poverty studies may avoid criticising government welfare policy

• Bias is unavoidable

  • Sociologists are part of the society they study, so their cultural background, beliefs, and experiences inevitably influence their work, even in topic choice

    • E.g., feminist researchers often prioritise studying gender inequality due to political commitment to women’s rights

• Moral responsibility

  • Weber (1919) rejected total value freedom, arguing that sociologists must take responsibility for the potential harm their research could cause

  • Avoiding moral engagement may allow harmful policies or practices to go unchallenged

    • E.g., research on racial profiling in policing could be misused to justify discrimination if left unchallenged

Sociology & subjectivity - the case against value freedom

• While positivists argue that sociology can and should be value-free, others disagree

• Many sociologists claim that it cannot — and should not — be free from values, because bias is inevitable and taking sides can make research more meaningful and socially relevant

Bias and the research process

• Phillips (1977) argued that data collection is a social process, involving interaction between researchers and participants

• Values inevitably shape this interaction, for example:

  • Respondents may change answers to gain social approval, hiding behaviour that conflicts with the researcher’s values

  • Interviewers may unintentionally give away their own values through tone, expression, or body language

  • Participant observers may ‘go native’, over-identifying with the group they study

  • The presence of the sociologist may alter the group’s behaviour and values

  • Ethnographic methods and the pursuit of verstehen may create sympathy and bias in favour of the group being studied

Domain assumptions

• Gouldner (1970s) believed that value-free sociology is a myth

  • Sociology is a social product shaped by human values and assumptions

• All sociologists have domain assumptions (unconscious worldviews shaped by culture), e.g.,

  • Male sociologists may adopt patriarchal assumptions — e.g., Parsons argued that distinct gender roles were biologically based

  • Functionalists assume society is based on consensus, making them less likely to study conflict or inequality

  • New Right thinkers often blame poverty on individuals or culture, ignoring structural inequality

  • Some criminologists focus on working-class crime while ignoring white-collar or corporate crime

Political sociology

• In the 1960s–70s, sociology was accused of being left-wing and ignoring value freedom

• Marxist and feminist researchers openly aimed to challenge injustice, siding with the poor and powerless

• Labelling theorists such as Becker, Young, and Cohen argued that sociologists should 'take the side of the underdog' (e.g., marginalised groups) to expose inequality

• Traditionally, positivists and functionalists reflected the viewpoint of the powerful (e.g., governments, employers)

• Gouldner (Marxist) went further: sociology should side with those fighting back, not just describe oppression but unmask how the powerful maintain control and support movements for social change

Postmodernist critique

• Postmodernists reject the idea that any perspective has a monopoly on truth

• Marxism, functionalism, and science itself are all just meta-narratives (big stories)

• Since all knowledge is shaped by values and assumptions, no perspective can claim to be more 'true' than another

• This argument even applies to postmodernism itself!

Evaluation of value involvement

Strengths

• Reveals hidden oppression and challenges inequality

  • Neutrality often ends up defending the status quo, while value involvement can expose exploitation and injustice

    • E.g., Becker argued sociologists should 'take the side of the underdog' to reveal the experiences of marginalised groups

• Empowers disadvantaged groups and drives social change

  • Value-informed research gives a voice to the powerless and challenges structures like class inequality, racism, and patriarchy

    • E.g., feminist research highlights gender inequality and has influenced social policies on domestic violence and workplace discrimination

• Makes sociology relevant to real-world issues

  • Value involvement prevents sociology from being abstract or detached

  • It connects research to moral and political questions, making it more useful in everyday life and policy debates

Criticisms

• Risk of bias and alienating audiences

  • Political commitments may shape findings or make research seem partisan

  • This can reduce its influence and acceptance in wider society

    • E.g., some Marxist studies are criticised for reducing all social issues to class conflict, while feminist or critical race research is sometimes dismissed in the media as 'biased' or 'ideological'

• Undermines credibility

  • If sociology is seen as activism rather than science, it may be dismissed as propaganda

  • This lowers its academic status compared to the natural sciences

Middle-ground position: Weber

• Weber took a compromise position in the debate

• He argued that values are unavoidable at some stages of research but must be excluded at others to maintain scientific credibility

Values in stages of research

Topic choice

• Sociologists’ values inevitably shape the choice of topic

• This is because researchers are influenced by their cultural and personal concerns — they study what they regard as socially important

• Weber called this value relevance

  • E.g., feminists value gender equality, so they are more likely to research women’s oppression

Data collection and hypothesis testing

• Once research begins, values must be kept out of the process of fact-gathering

• To remain rigorous, data collection and analysis must be as objective as possible

• This means:

  • avoiding leading questions in interviews

  • allowing hypotheses to be tested only against the evidence, not shaped to fit the researcher’s expectations

• In this stage, the hypothesis must stand or fall solely on whether it matches the observed facts

Interpreting data

• Values come back into play when interpreting findings

• Sociologists need a theoretical framework to make sense of the data, and their choice of framework is influenced by their values

• Weber argued that values should be made explicit, so others can see where possible bias may enter the analysis

Implications of research findings

• Weber believed sociologists cannot avoid the moral and political implications of their work

• They must take responsibility for the potential harm their research might cause, rather than hiding behind 'objectivity'

  • E.g., studies on racial profiling should not simply present data but also consider how findings might reinforce or challenge discrimination

Weber in the debate

• Weber’s position offers a middle ground:

  • Yes — sociology should aim for value freedom during data collection and analysis

  • No — values cannot be eliminated, since they shape topic choice, interpretation, and the use of findings

• This makes Weber’s stance a useful bridge between the positivist claim that sociology can be value-free and the critical view (e.g., Gouldner, Becker) that it cannot