On the almost inconceivable misunderstandings concerning the subject of value‐free social science

A value judgment says what is good or bad, and value‐free social science simply means social science free of value judgments. Yet many sociologists regard value‐free social science as undesirable or impossible and readily make value judgments in the name of sociology. Often they display confusion about such matters as the meaning of value‐free social science, value judgments internal and external to social science, value judgments as a subject of social science, the relevance of objectivity for value‐free social science, and the difference between the human significance of social science and value‐free social science. But why so many sociologists are so value‐involved – and generally so unscientific – is sociologically understandable: The closest and most distant subjects attract the least scientific ideas. And during the past century sociologists have become increasingly close to their human subject. The debate about value‐free social science is also part of an epistemological counterrevolution of humanists (including many sociologists) against the more scientific social scientists who invaded and threatened to expropriate the human subject during the past century.     

Reduction and The Future of Sociology*

The reductionist position of Homans and Skinner has generated substantial debate among sociologists over the past two decades. Mitch of the debate can be resolved by examining the issues in light of the history of science. A historical analysis suggests that modern sociology has little to lose—and something to gain—by reevaluating its traditional stance on reduction.     

Qualitative Cowboy or Qualitative Dude: An Impasse of Validity,Politics, and Ethics?

Sociological theorists' recent critique of foundationalism, the notion that observers can accurately represent a single, objective reality, has led to calls for sociology to abandon its claim to epistemic privilege. A related debate has ensued among qualitative sociologists over ethnography's claim to produce objective, authoritative accounts of field realities. This debate over "the crisis of representation" has apparently reached an epistemological impasse, as both "modernist" and "postmodernist" participants draw on a conceptual dichotomy inherited from correspondence models of science. The impasse is ethical as well, as participants "talk past one another" as they debate the appropriate responsibilities of sociologists. A pragmatist solution to this dilemma has been offered, but gives insufficient attention to the politics that shape the criteria to be used in judging the validity of accounts in local contexts. Drawing upon "modernist" discussions of field methods and an empirical case of "studying up" in Mondragón, Spain, this paper argues that a more politically attentive pragmatism could contribute to research practice that is both epistemologically and empirically defensible.     

Sociology and Human Rights in the Post‐Development Era

This article explores the dilemmas of the sociology of human rights – a growing field of academic research. Sociologists are increasingly conceptualizing poverty, global economic inequality, and social inequalities of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation not as social problems, but rather as human rights abuses. The shift of emphasis from the social problems perspective to the human rights perspective demands a different set of remedies from IGOs, national governments, and local authorities. Whereas in the past sociologists tended either to recommend modifications to social policies or to propose large‐scale social transformation, they now find themselves advocating the implementation of human rights on the global, national, and local levels. This has brought sociologists into the area of global governance. The process of delineating an explicitly sociological perspective on human rights is impeded by two overlapping dilemmas: (1) the tension between an approach that emphasizes the analysis of ‘rights effects’ on the global, national, and local levels and an approach that stresses the advocacy of rights as a palliative for social inequalities; and (2) the tension between an interdisciplinary vision, in which sociology would join other disciplines in illuminating human rights and a unidisciplinary vision, in which sociologists and their allies would push for a unified social science founded on human rights.     

Toward a Sociology of Nature

Although we often believe that nature stands apart from social life, our experience of nature is profoundly social. This paper unpacks this paradox in order to (1) explain sociology's neglect of the environment and (2) introduce the articles in this special issue on “the sociology of nature.” I argue that sociology's disinterest in the biophysical world is a legacy of its classical concern with tracing society's “Great Transformation” from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft: while early anthropologists studied “primitive” societies that allegedly had not yet completed “the passage from nature to culture” (Lévi‐Strauss 1963 : 99), pioneering sociologists presumed that industrialization and urbanization liberated “modern” society from nature and therefore focused their attention on “urbanism as a way of life” (Wirth 1938 ). As exemplified by the articles in this symposium, environmental sociology critiques the nature‐culture and town‐country dualisms. One of environmental sociology's core contributions has been demonstrating that nature is just as much a social construction as race or gender; however, its more profound challenge to the discipline lies in its refutation of the sociological axiom that social facts can be explained purely through reference to other social facts. “Environmental facts” are a constitutive feature of social life, not merely an effect of it.     

Reading Ibn Khaldun in the Formative Period of Sociology

‘Abd al-Rahman Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), the founder of the science of society, became known to modern sociologists during the formative period of sociology, that is, the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There was something of a reception of Ibn Khaldun in Europe at that time by sociologists and other scholars who were not necessarily involved with Islamic or West Asian studies. In fact, the reception of Ibn Khaldun by modern scholars in the West can be differentiated into Eurocentric or Orientalist as opposed to more disciplinary attitudes. While much has been said about the Eurocentric reception of Ibn Khaldun, less is discussed about the disciplinary approach to Ibn Khaldun among thinkers who wrote when the modern science of sociology was emerging in Europe. This special issue on Ibn Khaldun in the Formative Period of Sociology provides English translations of six articles originally written in Italian, French, German, Polish, Spanish and Turkish between 1896 and 1934. Not all of these articles were written by sociologists. Together, they provide some background as to how Ibn Khaldun was conceived of in non-area studies circles, in the social sciences and humanities.     

Can sociology be a science?: The issue of gender and sex-dimorphic characteristics

In spite of the fact that much of the work done by sociologists is of high quality, there appears to be a pervasive sense among sociologists that as a field sociology is not developing an accumulating base of knowledge that involves a combination of theory and empirical “facts.” Social constructs are a basic component of most human behavior, and such behaviors cannot be understood without attention to the nature of those social constructs. However, humans are also biological beings, their biological attributes are relatively stable, and variations in these attributes often have a strong effect on behavior. It is also the case that what persons experience and how they behave has an effect on their biological attributes. We suggest that if sociologists were attentive to the interactions of biological attributes and social constructs, sociologists would be in a position to develop a constantly expanding base of scientific social knowledge. As an illustrative example, we have focused on the issue of how gender and sex-dimorphic characteristics are intrinsically interrelated.     

Social work in Spain: a new social and economic reality to develop in practical academic training

This work focuses on understanding how the current Spanish economic crisis is generating changes in the social and economic reality in which social work degree students are developing their practical training and on knowing if this new reality has an impact on their training and on the vision, they can create of the profession. Using a mixed qualitative methodological approach, we aim to visualize and analyze the opinions and insights that both social work professionals and students provide. Online and face-to-face interviews were conducted with social workers working as practice tutors. Likewise, two focus groups were set up and social work degree students at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Spain) were also interviewed. The main results show that the new scenario creates a debate not only among professionals, but also among the students themselves. They value this stage as an opportunity to rethink their future professional practice. This article may be applicable to the European context, given that the economic crisis is affecting, to a greater or lesser extent, on the different welfare states in Europe.     

Further Beyond the Durkheimian Problematic: Environmental Sociology and the Co‐construction of the Social and the Natural

The biophysical environment is not tangential to the social; it is only tangential to conventional sociological thought. Environmental sociology arose in the 1970s based on this presupposition, but over time theory and empirical research have generally adopted a social constructionist or natural realist approach. Despite rejection of the Durkheimian dictum of explaining social facts through the invocation of other social facts, and thus refusal to presuppose human exemptionalism from ecological constraints, scholarship continues to reflect this nature/culture divide. When environmental sociologists focus on one side or the other of the nature/culture divide, the intertwining and conjoint constitution of the social and the biophysical–material is obscured. The intent of the present essay is to articulate a co‐constructionist ontological position sensitive to the temporal emergence of hybridity between the social and the natural and amenable to recognition of salient dynamics not readily envisioned from either side of the nature/culture divide. In doing so, the argument builds upon prior metatheoretical scholarship in environmental sociology and science and technology studies and highlights ontological conundrums that must be confronted in order to further the move toward a viable co‐constructionist posture.     

Comment on Conflict Methodology: a Protagonist Position

In response to Lundman and McFarlane's assessment of what they understand to be conflict methodology, several points of exception and clarification are offered. Conflict methodology is neither a new data collection technology nor an abandonment of professional ethics by sociologists. It is an emerging movement away from the orthodoxy of consensus methodology by sociologists who recognize the ethical and epistemological weaknesses inherent in the dogmas of positivistic science. It proposes an evolutionary epistemology in opposition to the reductionism, operationalism, objectivism, and technocracy of consensus methodology Conflict methodology affirms the unity of science and the social discourse, the centrality of subjectivity in science, and the emancipatory interest in knowledge, while recognizing the threat to the scientific standing of sociology posed by institutional domination of social research.     

Sociology and value neutrality: Limiting sociology to the empirical level

The scientific objectivity of sociology depends upon adherence to value neutrality, an adherence that strengthens the social power of sociologists. Yet all disciplines, including science, are motivated by values. This article argues that value neutrality is both possible and desirable for sociology, even though a number of values appear to be necessary to the sociological project. Among those values, some are necessary to the project of science as such, while others guide research interests. I argue that value consensus among sociologists regarding any extrascientific (research guiding) value raises questions of scientific integrity: Critical rationalism and humanitarianism are considered in this context. The scientific status of sociology is also compromised by nonempirical pronouncements, including the advocacy of certain values (such as egalitarianism) and of positions regarding the status of values (e.g., cultural relativism). I propose that the role of social scientist be kept distinct from the roles of moral philosopher and of theologian, and that this division of labor be accomplished by a scientific adherence to value neutrality. An earlier version of this paper was first presented at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.     

Social identities, class identity and political perspectives

There has been considerable controversy over the extent to which class is a salient social identity, and the importance of other social identities Marshall and his colleagues (1988) argue that class identity remains a salient frame of reference in people's daily lives while Saunders (1989;1990) and Emmison and Western (1990) argue that class identity is not as strong as they claim, and the importance of other social identities cannot be denied. However, proponents and opponents in the debate are agreed that the salience of social identities depends upon the context in which they are found which cannot be fully explored in highly-structured interviews. Drawing on data from a ‘qualitative re-study’ of the Affluent Worker series, it will be argued that people have many different identities, including a strong class identity, which co-exist at the same time. That said, their class identity is the most important influence on the formation of political perspectives. This finding concurs with the Essex team and Saunders even though he has sought to distance himself from this conclusion.     

Census Undercount: An Historical and Contemporary Sociological Issue*

As the public policy uses of U. S. census data have expanded in recent decades, census undercount has become a contentious public issue. Concern centers on the fact that persons that are economically and socially disadvantaged are omitted at higher rates than others. In this paper we outline some of the contributions which sociologists can make to the undercount debate. First, the uses of census data are reviewed, with emphasis on how coverage errors affect social science research. Next, a conceptual model of the census enumeration process is offered, and its social system and census process components are described.     

A "Scientific Revolution": Sociological Theory in the United States, 1930–1945

Between 1930 and 1945 the sociological profession suffered an identity crisis. Its origin and resolution were compounded of both academic realpolitik and theoretical dilemmas: generational conflicts and university power blocs on the one hand, and persisting intellectual obsessions on the other. Contemporary sociologists may find our current situation to be both derivative and parallel.     

Back to the future: Settlement sociology, 1885–1930

Between 1885 and. 1930, as sociology was becoming an academic discipline, sociology was also being practiced intelligently, innovatively, and self-consciously outside the academy in the social settlements that grew up in America’s major cities. In this paper, we first define and give a brief overview of the settlement movement in America; second, we show how the settlement workers were sociologists in their self-definition and action and in their relations with other sociologists; third, in the body of the paper, we describe the sociology done by the settlements in terms of the empirical research they undertook and the theory they created. Our argument is that settlement sociologists produced empirical studies that were both substantively significant and methodologically pioneer-ing; that they did so in terms of a coherent social theory unique in its focus on “the neighborly relation”; and that both their research and theory were part of a critical, reflexive, and activist sociology.     

The Rhetoric of Sociological Facts1

To develop inductively a preliminary list of rhetorical tools that sociologists use in their presentation of facts, we examine three general claims that are widely accepted as having been demonstrated empirically in the field of social movements: social networks are necessary for recruitment of new members; individual mental traits do not matter; and political opportunities are necessary for movement emergence. We identify eight rhetorical tools that helped promulgate these claims as facts. We all use techniques like these, but awareness about them can help us evaluate our arguments and find better ways to test them.     

Neither proscience nor antiscience: Metasociology as dialogue

This paper defends metasociology against the attacks of a particular brand of metasociological critique done in the name of scientific progress. The proponents of scientific progress often argue that metasociology does not contribute anything of substantial value to the progress of sociology as a science. In contrast, we argue that this view of metasociology is not terribly well informed. We suggest that metasociology should be thought of as a dialogue with other nearby disciplines and with contemporary political and moral conversations about the social world. One job of metasociology is to expose the assumptions of sociologists so as to make them more aware of where they stand in relation to other contemporary dialogues. We also argue that for metasociology to be taken seriously as dialogue, we must give up certain pretensions. The social grounds for metasociology as dialogue rest on epistemic relativism and, more importantly, on judgmental relativism.     

Analyse visuelle e représentation de la réalité

The author's objective is to establish a relationship between the theoretical structure at the basis of a qualitative sociological analysis and the forms of visual representation of social reality, such as photography and social documentaries. Visual material becomes an object of analysis when it refers to a society that talks about itself and when it reproduces a reality which it records and makes nameable. The theme of observation is characterized by a complex activity in which perception, imagination, and representation are different functions from the sociological point of view, yet strongly connected because they make it possible for the researcher to interact visually with social reality. Observation procedures ask sociologists to have an eye capable of recognizing and perceiving in a representative way the experiences they have lived and the social facts they have observed and described. These must be portrayed not only as suggestive visual metaphors, but also as a consequence of ‘sensitive hearing’ which is essential in all research phases, from anthropology to ethnography and sociology.     

Environmental and Resource Sociology: Theoretical Issues and Opportunities for Synthesis1

Abstract Rural sociologists have been disproportionately represented among the major contributors to environmental sociology. In part, this is because several areas of longstanding rural sociological interest (e.g., sociology of resource management and outdoor recreation, studies of resource-dependent communities) essentially came to be redefined as environmental sociology during the 1970s. The most significant role of rural sociologists in building environmental sociology, however, has perhaps been the fact that the material and biophysical nature of the phenomena they have traditionally studied contributed to a general predisposition to recognize the “materiality” of social structure and social life. I assess the major strategies that have been developed for theorizing this materiality, and then indicate some of the most critical lines of debate and dissension. I argue that if these debates are examined in their specifics—rather than as incompatible perspectives or “paradigms”—some opportunities for synthesis become apparent. Some suggested avenues of synthesis are set forth.     

Beyond the Comtean Schema: The Sociology of Culture and Cognition Versus Cognitive Social Science

In this essay, I argue that the very form of the grammatical construction “a sociology of culture and cognition” (which is a specification of the more general schema “a sociology of [X]”) is symptomatic of a deeply entrenched form of “Primitive Classification” (which I will refer to as the “Comtean schema”) that governs the way in which sociologists conceive of their place in, and engage with other denizens of, the social science landscape. I will also argue that while this style of disciplinary engagement might have worked in the past when it came to dealing with the standard (nineteenth‐century) social science disciplines and even some late‐twentieth‐century upstarts, it will not work as a way to engage the now‐sprawling postdisciplinary field that I will refer to as “Cognitive Social Science” (CSS). The takeaway point is that if sociologists want to be part of CSS (and it is in their interest to be part of it because this constitutes the future of the behavioral sciences), then they will have to give up the Comtean‐schematic thought style.