Socio
1)M/J 2010
The study of sociology is influenced by values, and this is the reason why sociology can never be a science. Explain and asses this view.
Basic Idea: value free vs. not free from values
>> 19th century; socio; study; impressed by the advances in natural sciences as it the era of modernity; more intro; bring both the for and against argument in question,
>> Many sociologists believed that research could and should be value free; Comte; Durkheim,
>> Esp. to theorists advocating qualitative approaches, there is no prospect of a completely value free sociology. Values aren't inevitable; even in natural sciences value judgement exists,
>> Weber; values influence choice of topic; Alvin Gouldner's 'domain assumption'
>> In every angle of discussion, never fail to explore the 'WHY' it can't be a science argument,
>> Some believe their objective, rather than producing objective knowledge, is to discover the truth/realities of structure/society; oppressive structure the theorist discover simply reflect their own prejudice: feminists will always find patriarchal oppression, anti-racists will spot racism and so on,
>> Angles I've provided are not structured in an orderly fashion.
>> Lynch, Gomm
>> Make an argument on history, critical social scientists: Manesh Sir love the "history" arguments.
>> Conclusion: Researchers ought to openly address their values before research is conducted,
>> Kuhn: criticizes scientific knowledge (I think); But add him, he's IMP,
>> Karl Popper: using deductive rather than inductive; try to disprove your hypothesis; respondent validiation: Comte/Durkheim together wala study.
2) O/N 2010
Sociology can and should be based on the same principles and research methods as natural science. Explain and asses.
Topical argument: positivists vs. interpretivists
>> 19th century wala intro; modernity; the advent of sociology and natural sciences; the breaking of promises of modernity, interpretivist strands of thinking,
>> Positivist intro on natural sciences,
>> Comte,
>> Durkheim,
>> Four aspects of stages: Comte and D,
>> Despite all, interpretivist thinking,
>> Stimulus and research,
>> Phenomenology's claim,
>> Weber (goes up, not in this place of argument),
>> Conclude: triangulation perhaps? Most suitable.
>> BUT THE LEVEL OF EXPLANATIONS OUGHT TO BE TWO-FOLD: CAN and SHOULD!!!!!!!!!!
The study of sociology is influenced by values, and this is the reason why sociology can never be a science. Explain and asses this view.
Basic Idea: value free vs. not free from values
>> 19th century; socio; study; impressed by the advances in natural sciences as it the era of modernity; more intro; bring both the for and against argument in question,
>> Many sociologists believed that research could and should be value free; Comte; Durkheim,
>> Esp. to theorists advocating qualitative approaches, there is no prospect of a completely value free sociology. Values aren't inevitable; even in natural sciences value judgement exists,
>> Weber; values influence choice of topic; Alvin Gouldner's 'domain assumption'
>> In every angle of discussion, never fail to explore the 'WHY' it can't be a science argument,
>> Some believe their objective, rather than producing objective knowledge, is to discover the truth/realities of structure/society; oppressive structure the theorist discover simply reflect their own prejudice: feminists will always find patriarchal oppression, anti-racists will spot racism and so on,
>> Angles I've provided are not structured in an orderly fashion.
>> Lynch, Gomm
>> Make an argument on history, critical social scientists: Manesh Sir love the "history" arguments.
>> Conclusion: Researchers ought to openly address their values before research is conducted,
>> Kuhn: criticizes scientific knowledge (I think); But add him, he's IMP,
>> Karl Popper: using deductive rather than inductive; try to disprove your hypothesis; respondent validiation: Comte/Durkheim together wala study.
2) O/N 2010
Sociology can and should be based on the same principles and research methods as natural science. Explain and asses.
Topical argument: positivists vs. interpretivists
>> 19th century wala intro; modernity; the advent of sociology and natural sciences; the breaking of promises of modernity, interpretivist strands of thinking,
>> Positivist intro on natural sciences,
>> Comte,
>> Durkheim,
>> Four aspects of stages: Comte and D,
>> Despite all, interpretivist thinking,
>> Stimulus and research,
>> Phenomenology's claim,
>> Weber (goes up, not in this place of argument),
>> Conclude: triangulation perhaps? Most suitable.
>> BUT THE LEVEL OF EXPLANATIONS OUGHT TO BE TWO-FOLD: CAN and SHOULD!!!!!!!!!!