Particularly striking in this conception is the notion of inventory, which suggests multiple ontologies and the need to collate. The assumptions about the nature of the world in sociology can be classified into two broad orientations, realism and social constructivism. Realism posits the existence of an objective reality independent of human thoughts and beliefs. Contrary to this position, social constructionism is of the view that reality is not independent of human thoughts and beliefs; rather, it is socially constructed (Oxford dictionary of sociology, 552-553, 609). Berger and Luckmann (1967:15-22) argue that social relativity is inherent in reality and knowledge, hence, its collection is defined by social contexts imperative for sociological analysis.
This is where the convincing element of a thesis and theory should be very persuasive and eminent. Without a major consensus from other experts and other people in that field, a theory cannot be accepted to be true. There are many aspects of both sciences that help make theses and conjectures convincing. These aspects are: observation, collection of empirical evidence, and generally the scientific method. These aspects are the main reasons behind theories being cogent and compelling.
Sociologists do not simply declare their beliefs indisputable truths – they do research to determine whether those beliefs are correct. Their investigations are rooted in the scientific method that distinguishes the sociological perspective from “commonsense” interpretations of the world. The sociological perspective emphasizes that people’s thoughts and action are strongly influenced by the groups to which they belong as well as by impinging social factors such as beliefs, values, practices and institutions. From birth to death individuals are imbedded within and influenced by groups and larger structures. As sociologists our main goal is to understand social situations and look for repeating patterns in society.
Discuss the merits and demerits of qualitative and quantitative data in sociological research Sociologists have for a long time been divided on the issue of using either quantitative or qualitative data within their sociological research. Those that employ quantitative data are referred to as positivists. Positivists, according to Haralambos and Holborn, are those sociologists who advocate that society can by studied by using scientific methods within research. Those on the other hand that utilize qualitative data within their research are known as interpretivists. Interpretivists are those who support the use of more humanistic methods within research as they believe society cannot be studied as a science because human behaviour is not governed by society.
The cultural aspect of the sociological imagination involves the “learned ideas, values, knowledge, rules and customs shared by members of a collectivity” (Holmes et al, 2003, pg 11). Culture in the sociological imagination allows the comprehension of why people hold certain ideas and values, and follows certain rules and customs. The critical aspect of the sociological imagination stipulates the initiative to analyze. Although it is, by human nature, to assume the meaning of actions carried out by people, C. Wright Mills claims that assumptions are not enough. Through assumptions, many things are taken for granted and the true meaning is not revealed.
Objective knowledge is usually based on facts, and is usually related to the sciences, whereas subjective knowledge is affected by the person’s position or attitude and is usually linked to the humanities. We know that subjective knowledge is created by us, but who determines objective knowledge? The law is a form of objective knowledge, but how can we come to a mutual agreement of what should be considered ethical and non ethical? This is often a question associated with universal knowledge. Using the example of the law we will notice that we cannot function as a society without objective knowledge.
There is increasing interest in something called "phenomenological sociology." If this interest is to be sustained, indeed if this sub-discipline is to contribute to our knowledge of the social world, we must become clear on what phenomenological sociology is and can become. At present serious problems exist in the writings of many sociologists who have contributed to, and implicitly defined, this approach to sociology. In general, they display only a metaphorical understanding of phenomenology as a philosophy and as a set of methods. In addition, and partly as a result, they fail to understand the relationship between sociology and phenomenology.
He uses Clyde Kuckhohn’s Mirror of Man, a work he believes is a good general introduction to anthropology, as a basis to describe his own view. He believes that Kluckhohns definition of culture as “the total way of life of a people”, is slightly constricted and does not represent the complete picture. He sees the concept of culture as predominately a semiotic one. Semiotic being the study of signs and sign processes. Geertz sees culture as “webs of significance” and the analysis of these webs.
Giddens (2009 p.6) defined sociology as ‘‘the scientific study of human life, social groups, whole societies and the human world as such’’. He argued further about sociology by suggesting that, ‘‘it is a dazzling and compelling enterprise, as its subject matter is our own behaviour as social beings’’. Hence, it is opined that sociology is an academic tool that broadly looks at human organisms’ lives in order to explain why they act the way they do. Black (1979 p.18) defines common sense as ‘‘the style of discourse by which people understand reality in everyday life”. Sociology is in one way or another related to science and common sense but it is also in many ways distinct from the two.
Good arguments or good reasons with science are those that are supported by the scientific method. In the realm of science, various theories and hypotheses can be tested and supported through the scientific method. Pseudoscience refers to a theory that belongs to the domain of science; however, it is not scientifically testable. Pseudoscience is collections of ideas or theories that are made by people who claim their theories are “scientific when they are not scientific”. Pseudoscience cannot be said as a science because their theories do not come from observation and lead nowhere to further scientific problems.