The word fact derives from the Latin factum. A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is its verifiability, that is, whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
Thus, a fact is regarded as an empirically verifiable observation. A theory, on the other hand, is a set of ideas which provides an explanation for something. It is an abstract and generalized statement which tends to establish a logical interrelationship between facts (concepts or variables). Theories involve constructing abstract interpretations that can be used to explain a wide variety of empirical situations.
Thus, in sociology, we can say that a sociological
theory is a set of ideas which provides an explanation for human society. As
discussed earlier, sociology is a scientific study of society and as we know
that scientific research is a guided search for facts based on the formulated
hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative statement asserting a relationship
between certain facts. It is the hypothesis that guides the researcher what
data to look for. A social scientist or researcher conducts a field research
and collects data (facts) in order to test the hypothesis. After data
collection, data is processed. Thereafter, the researcher tests the hypothesis
against the processed data. If the hypothesis is proved (i.e. supported by
data) then it becomes thesis – if it is repeatedly proved, it becomes a theory
and if it is almost universally true, then if becomes the law.
Thesis
→ Theory → Law
Thesis, Theory and Law, they all are
generalizations. They represent different degrees of generalizations. In
natural sciences, we hear about several laws but in social sciences we only
have theories. Social sciences study social behaviour of man which is guided by
unique meanings and motives, values and beliefs, etc. Hence, given the
diversity and dynamism of human society in general, it is nearly impossible to
arrive at a universally valid generalization or law of human society.
Let us now discuss the interrelationship of theory
and facts (empirical research). Robert K. Merton, the American sociologist, has
elaborated on this aspect in detail in his essays. In his essay ‘The bearing
of sociological theory on empirical research’ he argues that without a
theoretical approach, we would not know what facts to look for in beginning a
study or in interpreting the results of research. Often, existing theories
serve as a source for hypothesis formulation and thus stimulate and guide
further research resulting in discovery of new facts. For example, Marxian
theory suggests that increasing economic inequalities are the primary cause of
alienation and class conflict in modern capitalist societies. This theory can
serve as a source for our hypothesis to understand the rising discontentment
among masses in the contemporary Indian society. Thus you may start exploring
that to what extent economic inequality is a factor in the rise of Naxalism or
caste conflicts in rural India, etc. Thus theory helps to define which kinds of
facts are relevant. Secondly, theory establishes a rational link between two or
more variables and thus can act as a tool for prediction and control. For
example, various theories have highlighted female education as a critical
factor in the overall social development. Thus, in order to improve their
ranking on the social development index, countries with low female education
can initiate female education programmes at national level because we now know
that female education has direct bearing on the social development of a
society. Thirdly, as stated earlier, theory is an abstract and generalized
statement which tends to establish a logical interrelationship between facts
(concepts or variables). Theories involve constructing abstract interpretations
and thus make the knowledge cross-culturally useful. For example, Weber’s ideal
type of bureaucracy is nothing but an abstraction which can serve as tool for a
comparative study of bureaucratic models across societies.
Merton in his another essay ‘The bearing of
empirical research on sociological theory’ argues that empirical research
is generally assigned a rather passive role: the testing or verification of
hypotheses. Merton argues that empirical research goes far beyond the passive
role of verifying and testing theory: it does more than confirm or refute
hypotheses. According to Merton, research plays an active role: it performs at
least four major functions which help shape the development of theory. It initiates,
it reformulates, it deflects and it clarifies theory.
Merton explain in his essay that how under certain conditions, a research
finding gives rise to social theory. He calls it ‘serendipity pattern’.
Merton argues that fruitful empirical research not only tests theoretically
derived hypothesis, it also originates new hypothesis. This might be termed the
‘serendipity’ component of research, i.e., the discovery, by chance or
sagacity, of valid results which were not sought for. In simpler words, it
implies that during the course of research some unanticipated but strategic
data may come to light, which may initiate a new theory altogether. For
example, Elton Mayo, a professor at the Harvard Business School, in his
investigation at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company in Chicago,
conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the relationship
between working conditions and productivity. Mayo began with the assumptions of
scientific management believing that the physical conditions of the work
environment, the aptitude of the worker and the financial incentives were the
main determinants of productivity. However, during the course of his research
Mayo struck upon the role of informal groups and group norms in determining the
productivity. From the Hawthorne studies, developed the human relations school,
which challenged and led to the reformulation of the conventional scientific
management approach. It stated that scientific management provided too narrow a
view of man and that financial incentives alone were insufficient to motivate
workers and ensure their cooperation. The Hawthorne studies moved the emphasis
from the individual worker to the worker as a member of a social group. The
behaviour of the worker was seen as a response to group norms rather than
simply being directed by economic incentives and management designed work
schemes. It was found that the informal work groups develop their own norms and
values which are enforced by the application of group sanctions. The power of
such sanctions derives from the dependence of the individual upon the group. He
has a basic need to belong, to feel part of a social group. He needs approval,
recognition and status, needs which cannot be satisfied if he fails to conform
to group norms.
Thus there is an intricate relation between theory
and fact. Facts (empirical research) and theory are inherently dependent on
each other. Factual research and theories can never completely be separated. We
can only develop valid theoretical approaches if we are able to test them out
by means of factual research.
Now we
will discuss the role of values in sociological enquiry and associated with it
is the problem of objectivity.
As stated earlier, the subject matter of sociology
is the study of human behaviour in society. All human behaviour is guided by
values. Moreover, social research is in itself a type of social behaviour
guided by the value of ‘search for true knowledge.’ Values are socially
accepted standards of desirability. In other words, a value is a belief that
something is good and desirable. It defines what is important and worthwhile.
Values differ from society to society and culture to culture. For example, in
West, the dominant values are individualism and materialism which are this-wordly
in nature. While in India, moksha had been a long cherished goal of
human life which is other-wordly in nature.
In order to have a complete understanding of man’s
social behaviour it is not only important but also necessary to take into
account the unique meanings, motives and values that underlie such behaviour.
Initially this view was advocated by anti-positivists scholars (also known as
neo-Kantian scholars in Germany) like Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), Wilhelm
Windelband (1848-1915) and Heinrich Rikert (!863-1936). Later, Weber also
argued that behaviour of man in society is qualitatively different from that of
physical objects and biological organisms. He argued that unlike matter, man
has consciousness – thoughts, feelings, meanings, intentions and an awareness
of being. Because of this, his actions are meaningful. He defines situations
and gives meaning to his actions and those of others. As a result, he does not
merely react to external stimuli, he does not simply behave, he acts. Thus, if
action stems from subjective meanings, it follows that the sociologist must
discover those meanings in order to understand action. He cannot simply observe
action from the outside and impose an external logic upon it. He must interpret
the internal logic which directs the actions of the actor.
However, the views mentioned above are quite
antithetical to the propositions of positivist tradition in sociology. Auguste
Comte, who is credited with inventing the term sociology and regarded as one of
the founders of the discipline, maintained that the application of the methods
and assumptions of the natural sciences would produce a ‘positive science of
society’. In terms of sociology, the positivist approach makes the following
assumptions. The behaviour of man, like the behaviour of matter, can be
objectively measured. Just as the behaviour of matter can be quantified by
measures such as weight, temperature and pressure, methods of objective
measurement can also be devised for human behaviour. The positivist approach in
sociology places particular emphasis on behaviour that can be directly
observed. It argues that factors which are not directly observable such as
meanings, feelings, motives, etc. are not particularly important and can be
misleading. This is best manifested in the works of Durkheim. Durkheim in his “Rules
of Sociological Method” states that social facts must be treated as
‘things’ and all the preconceived notions about the social facts must be
abandoned.
On the basis of the above discussed ideas of both
positivist and anti-positivist scholars, one thing is clear that without taking
into account the values that underlie human behaviour, a comprehensive
understanding of man’s social behaviour would not be possible. Our reliance on
positivist approach alone would produce a partial picture of social reality.
But if we undertake study of values as well in the course of sociological
research then the problem of objectivity raises its head (because we know that
values are subjective). Let us now discuss what does objectivity means and how
different scholars have tried to address the problem of objectivity in
sociology.
Objectivity is a ‘frame of mind’ so that the
personal prejudices or preferences of the social scientists do not contaminate
the collection and analysis of data. Objectivity is the goal of scientific
investigation. Sociology also being a science aspires for the goal of
objectivity. Thus, scientific investigations should be free from the prejudices
of race, colour, religion, sex or ideological biases. The need of objectivity
in sociological research has been emphasized by all important sociologists. For
example, Durkheim, in this ‘Rules of the Sociological Method’ stated
that ‘social facts’ must be treated as ‘things’ and all preconceived notions
about the social facts must be abandoned. Even Max Weber emphasized the need of
objectivity when he said that sociology must be value-free. According to
Radcliffe-Brown, the social scientist must abandon or transcend his
ethnocentric and egocentric biases while carrying out researches. Similarly,
Malinowski advocated ‘cultural relativism’ while conducting anthropological
field work in order to ensure objectivity.
However, objectivity continues to be an elusive
goal at the practical level. In fact, one school of thought represented by
Gunnar Myrdal states that complete objectivity in social sciences is a myth.
Gunnar Myrdal in his book ‘Objectivity in Social Research’ argues that total
objectivity is an illusion which can never be achieved. Because all research is
always guided by certain viewpoints and viewpoints involve subjectivity. Myrdal
argues that subjectivity creeps in at various stages in the course of
sociological research. For example, the very choice of topic of research is
influenced by personal preferences and ideological biases of the researcher.
How personal preferences influence the choice of topic of research can be
illustrated from a study made by Prof. Schwab. In his study he analyzed 4000
scientific papers produced over a span of centuries. He found that the choice
made by scientists in pursuing their research was based on their personal
preferences as determined by personality factors and social
circumstances.
Besides personal preferences, the ideological
biases, acquired in the course of education and training also have a bearing on
the choice of the topic of research. The impact of ideological biases on social
research can be very far reaching as can be seen from the study of Tepostalan
village in Mexico. Robert Redfield studied it with a functionalist perspective
and concluded that there exists total harmony between various groups in the
village while Oscar Lewis studied this village at almost the same time from
Marxist perspective, and found that the society was conflict ridden. Here we
can see that how the differences of ideological perspectives had a bearing on
the research findings even though the society studied was the same.
Subjectivity can also creep in at the time of
formulation of hypothesis. Normally hypotheses are deducted from existing body
of theory. Now all sociological theories are produced by and limited to
particular groups whose view points and interests they represent. Thus
formulation of hypotheses will automatically introduce a bias in the
sociological research.
The fourth stage at which subjectivity creeps in
the course of research is that of collection of empirical data. No technique of
data collection is perfect. Each technique may lead to subjectivity in one way
or the other. For example, in case of participant observation, the observer as
a result of ‘nativisation’ acquires a bias in favour of the group he is
studying. While in non-participant observation, the sociologist belongs to a
different group than that under study. He is likely to impose his values and
prejudices. In all societies there are certain prejudices. For e.g., in
America, people have prejudices against the Blacks and in India, people have
prejudices against untouchables or women. Such prejudices of the observer may
influence his observation. Further, in case of interview as a technique of data
collection, the data may be influenced by (i) context of the interview; (ii)
interaction of the participants; (iii) participants’ definition of the
situation; (iv) and if adequate rapport does not extend between them there
might be communication barriers. Thus, according to P.V. Young, interview
sometimes carries a double dose of subjectivity.
Finally subjectivity can also creep in due to field
limitations as was found in case of Andre Beteille’s study of Sripuram village
in Tanjore where the Brahmins did not allow him to visit the untouchable
locality and study their point of view.
Thus complete objectivity continues to be an
elusive goal. Myrdal argues that sociology at best could aspire for the goal of
value-neutrality on the part of the researcher. This could be attained by
either of the following ways:
i.
The researcher should exclude all ideological or non-scientific assumptions
from his research;
ii.
The researcher should make his value-preference clear in the research
monograph. As Weber has also stated that the researcher should be
value-frank;
iii.
The researcher should not make any evaluative judgement about empirical
evidence;
iv.
The researcher should remain indifferent to the moral implication of his
research;
v.
Highly trained and skilled research workers should be employed.
vi.
Various methods of data collection should be used and the result obtained from
one should be cross checked with those from the other.
vii.
Field limitations must be clearly stated in the research monograph.
Eminent sociologist T. K. Oommen in his book Knowledge
and Society emphasizes the importance of ‘contextualization’ in
sociological enquiry. Oommen argues that while objectivity in natural sciences
is generalizing objectivity, in social sciences it is particularizing
objectivity. He suggests that objectivity in social sciences has to be contextual
objectivity. Contextual objectivity, according to Oommen, can be determined
by intra-subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Intra-subjectivity is one where
the same researcher (with his given value orientation) studies the same object
(the social group) at two different points of time and arrives at the similar
conclusions. Inter-subjectivity, on the other hand, is one when two researchers
(with similar value orientations) study the same object at the same time and
arrive at similar conclusions.
Of late, a group of American sociologists who have
come to be known as ‘radical sociologists’, have advocated that total
value-neutrality is not desirable. Commitment to total political neutrality
reduces the sociologist to the status of a mere spectator and sociologists can
play no creative role in the society. After all the basic purpose of
sociological knowledge is social welfare. But, given such excessive
preoccupation with value-neutrality, the role of sociologists has been like, to
use W.H. Auden’s phrase, “Lecturing on navigation while the ship is going
down.” C. Wright Mills has also complained that sociology has lost its
‘reforming push’. Alvin W. Gouldner, most remembered for his work The Coming
Crisis of Western Sociology (1970), argued that sociology must turn away
from producing objective truths and understand the subjective nature of
sociology and knowledge in general and how it is bound up with the context of
the times. He called for a reflexive sociology in which there would be
no forgetting of the idea that the sociologist was part of society and played a
social role. As the commonplace has it, sociology cannot be practiced outside
its historical and social context. Thus, according to C. Wright Mills, Alvin W.
Gouldner and others, sociology must have commitment to certain basic human
values and sociologists should be ready to defend human freedom and the pursuit
of reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment