What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of sociology’s main approaches to doing research: scientific sociology, interpretative sociology, and critical sociology?

Answer 1

Hi Dorian! Today, there are still distinctions amongst the methodology of sociologists, but many use multiple or all three methods as a tool for their practice. Since this question is worded broadly, with each as distinct, I'll try to engage as such.

Scientific sociology, more specifically positivism, is a form of sociology that relies on empirical or observable data to find correlations or causal associations between social phenomenon. One example would be testing the correlation between socioeconomic status and success at a four year college or university. The advantage of pursuing this type of method, if done correctly, is that you can find representative data that can be used to generalize how a student's social class position can impact their success rates in school. A disadvantage of this form of study is that by categorizing individuals into statistical models, you lose out on the depth and nuance of the student experience within these social class positions and for these students. This nuance can provide additional depth and meaning to why they are or are not succeeding in college. Such a frame of social phenomenon can also miss out on social forces lying underneath these observable phenomena.

Interpretive methods, more commonly known as qualitative methods, utilize a more nuanced approach to understanding social events and phenomena. The example of understanding a low SES student's experience through quantitative methods like above, often does not show the full nuanced picture of the student's experience: how they interact with others, how they came across and navigated constraints and hardship while going through college, and how their experiences ultimately related to their success at school. Qualitative studies and frameworks seek to understand the depth and nuance of the subjects and events, but as a result of focus are often not representative of the student population from which they can generalize the experience to other students outside the sample group. In other words, If you were to interview 20 students at a university on their first year experience, you will likely find deep and meaningful data that can be used towards depicting the experience of first year students, but your findings aren't representative of all first year students.

Critical sociology as a method, is applicable to both the previous two frameworks (scientific and interpretive), though usually scientific sociology tends to frame itself as neutral and objective. However, critical sociology as a branch of the three macro theories (conflict theory for example) tends to seek flaws in structures, institutions, theories and processes to demonstrate how these examples overlook or fail to incorporate these flaws in their analysis. They work to highlight the inequalities, and problems that exist within society for groups, its members, and the connection between these groups and society. Despite the distinction created in this question, many if not most sociologists incorporate critical analysis in some form into their methods or frameworks.

An advantage of critical sociology would be that it takes into consideration the underlying mechanisms or forces that shape and influence social behavior, structures and institutions. When used with the other methods it can be very helpful in understanding "why" and "how" questions concerning the data you receive. It has been critiqued in some of its forms as unscientific as it relies heavily upon theories and the focus of structural forces over agents, but as previously stated, now you see critical sociology in all forms of studies including data driven quantitative studies.

I hope this helps answer your question.