Sociologists have debated whether sociology, the study of people and society can be considered a science and whether it should be. The debate revolves around two ontological perspectives, positivism and interpretivism and is underpinned by what constitutes a science. The “founding fathers” of sociology Durkheim and Comte take a positivist stance, suggesting society is an external reality independent from individuals just like that of the natural world, therefore using rigorous and tightly controlled methodology such as quantitative data they can discover social facts or laws that apply to humans similarly to that of gravity. They suggest sociology can be value free and objective and thus is scientific however interpretivists reject this stating humans are conscious beings who do not merely react but act. Humans are unpredictable, emotional and complex beings unlike matter, this cannot be measured and thus sociology cannot be scientific and objective as to understand this complexity, in depth, subjective data must be gathered. Such as observations and interviews to deduce the real meanings and motives behind people’s behaviour. The argument of should sociology be a science considers ethical issues, funding and prestige and the somewhat straightjacket of quantitative methods. In order to see sociology as a science we must first consider what a science is and the point of science, as postmodernists argue science is a no more truthful paradigm than religious belief prior to the Enlightenment era, is science a desirable label for sociology?

The study of humans may be scientific in biological or physical terms however human behaviour and interactions are often difficult to measure. Interpretivists argue in order to understand and thus draw conclusions on human behaviour we must use qualitative methods to find out personal meanings behind actions which then must be interpreted, therefore sociology cannot be value free as interpretation involves attaching your own meanings to data. Science claims to be entirely objective and predominantly is, perhaps this is due to there being little relationship between inanimate objects and researchers however it could be argued science is not entirely objective as often the subject of study is influenced by funding. For example, a pharmaceutical company may fund a project into a new drug which may influence the outcomes of the experiment as they will want the drug to be mass produced for sale. Therefore it could be argued not even science is entirely objective similarly to sociology. Interpretivists also argue people are unpredictable thus replicability is impossible as people will react differently in different times and situations meaning sociology cannot be a science as being able to replicate is often a criteria for scientific study. However, it could be argued seismology (the study of earthquakes) is considered a science however it is highly unpredictable and events cannot be replicated suggesting that sociology may be similar to this branch of science, studying the unpredictable. Finally, they argue sociology cannot be a science as many things sociology explores such as emotions, family ties and deviance cannot be measured especially motives and meanings cannot be measured, for example how can you measure love scientifically, it is an abstract emotion and therefore immeasurable, the essence of science is to be able to test and measure something, therefore sociology cannot be a science according to phenomenologists.

However, many sociologists including Durkheim claim sociology can be scientific if the researcher is committed to eliminating bias through distancing themselves from the subject and using positivist methods. Durkheim was influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution and proposed that societies similarly evolved and that they existed outside of human consciousness, he tried to find out social facts that influence passive individuals using official statistics which are considered reliable sources, despite many Marxist claims they are socially constructed. Durkheim showed that human behavioural patterns could be deduced from quantitative data in his suicide study which concluded suicides were more likely to occur in societies of Protestant religion in comparison to Catholic thus concluding suicide increases with a lack or too much social integration. Using this method meant he studied a large, representative sample which could therefore be generalised to wider societies, this is perhaps key for studying society as it shows patterns that can represent societies as a whole. Positivists argue sociology can be a science if objectivity is maintained through quantitative methods which can uncover social patterns and thus provide evidence of social facts similar to scientific laws.

Whilst there are two distinct oppositions regarding whether sociology can be a science there are more perspectives on whether it should be a science. For example Postmodernists argue against the idea of a scientific sociology. They regard the natural science as a meta-narrative similar to that of Marxism. Despite the claim to have the truth, science is another big story; its account of the world is no more valid than any other. Thus as there are so many different views, a scientific approach is dangerous as it can claim a monopoly of truth and exclude other points of view, critics such as Bilig have argued objective, scientific methods are a straightjacket for sociology as they eliminate innovative ideas by focusing on disproving or approving a hypothesis. Thus scientific sociology not only makes false claims about the truth but is also considered a form of domination. Feminists share this view of scientific sociology; they argue the quantitative scientific methods favoured by positivists are oppressive and cannot capture the reality of women’s experiences. Some writers argue that science is an undesirable model for sociology to follow as in practice science has not led to the progress that positivists believe it would for example science has created nuclear weapons and damaging drugs such as Thalidomide. Being a science would limit the scope of sociological research, much social phenomena would be untouched if purely scientific methods were used meaning the very point of sociology as Giddens argues “to expand knowledge and awareness” would be decreased.

Positivists and even some Feminists have argued that actually sociology should be considered a science because of the benefits of status of a science brings. For example, science is seen as a prestigious subject that provides the truth and thus is granted large funds for research by TNC’s and Governments. If sociology were to be scientific, sociological studies would be given more funds and thus could carry out more research to uncover truths about society and would be esteemed highly by academics and governments. Giddens and Liberal feminists argue sociological research should be undertaken to actively change or influence social policy, to purposely influence policies that would improve womens, the poor and vulnerable people in society’s lives. Quantitative, objective research is more likely to influence social policy as it is less bias, therefore sociology should adopt scientific methods to produce objective results which could then influence social policy for the greater good of society.

 Sociology is a complex subject comprised of many different and conflicting perspectives thus there is no single paradigm as Khun suggests science has,  and social phenomena is fundamentally different to natural phenomena suggesting sociology cannot be considered a science. However, positivists argue sociology can be a science depending on the methodology used in research and there are often discrepancies regarding the definition of science and what constitutes a science. Many condemn the notion of sociology as a science as it limits research and scientific experiments often incur manipulating a variable, in this case it is perhaps ethically wrong to manipulate humans. However, if sociology seeks to change social policy and act upon the conclusions drawn of inequality and marginalisation perhaps being considered a science will make this more available.