Marx, Durkheim & Comte’s views on values
science would tell us what our values should be
Weber- a value cant be proved or disproved by facts they belong to different realms
Weber’s 4 stages of research process
modern positivists (why values are irrelevant to research)
-desire to appear scientific: science concerned with facts so should remain morally neutral. this would make it respectable
-social position: Gouldner- ‘problem takers’ hired out to organisations to solve their problems for them. made own values irrelevant to paymasters
Myrdal (commited sociology)
should spell out values and openly take sides . It is not possible or desirable to keep values out of research
Gouldners view of value-free sociology
impossible: own values, paymasters reflected in work
undesirable: without values, selling their services to highest bidder
Becker
sociologists should take a compassionate stand and side with underdogs as less is known about these groups and their story needs to be told to restore balance
-can reveal a hidden social reality
AO3 of Becker
Gouldner- takes a romantic view to disadvantaged groups. G adopts a marxist perspective. sociologists should take the sides of those fighting back
funding and careers
the body that pays for research controls what direction it takes. May block publications if findings unacceptable.
-may wish to further careers so this influences topic
-may censor themselves out of fear
relativism view on values
different groups have different views on whats true.
No independant way of judging if one view is truer.
AO3 on relativism
paradoxical conclusion: relativism is self defeating it claims to be telling us something is true while also telling us no one can tell us what is true