Comparison of Positivist and Phenomenological Methods

Describe, compare, contrast, and critically evaluate the effectiveness of both positivist and phenomenological methodology adopted when studying society.

Sociology is the study of human society, including both social action and organisation. Sociologists use scientific research methods and theories, and study social life in a wide variety of settings, this offers not only information but also a distinctive way of looking at the world and the position humans play in it. Whereas most people try to explain events by analyzing the motives of those involved, sociologists encourage a look beyond individual psychology to many recurring attitudes, actions and how these patterns vary across time, cultures and social groups. To look at the different ways people act and behave in society, it has to be seen from a sociological perspective. Within sociology there is no single method, but many. As stated by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) Science appeared to be capable of producing objective knowledge that could be used to solve human problems and increase human productive capacity in an unprecedented way. This assignment will look at the two main methodologies, used by sociologists, past and present, and compare the effectiveness of the two.

When the task of comparing and contrasting the two methodologies of positivism and phenomenology, adopted within the study of society, there are many things that leap to mind: Firstly, there is the factor of time or circa and secondly is the influence of certain acclaimed sociologists within the two different approaches. Methodology within sociology is the study of methods and deals with the philosophical assumptions underlying the research process, using scientific quantitative data collection under those philosophical assumptions. The broad methodology positions, positivism and phenomenology differ hugely. Positivism contains the underlying philosophical assumptions of research in the most pure and applied sciences, physics, chemistry and biology, based on ideas of the objective reality of the physical world, scientific method and empiricism. Just as positivism arose out of rejecting speculation an alternative view has arisen out of rejecting the view that scientific empiricism can be applied to the social world. There is no one philosophical basis, but phenomenology, which can be seen as the basis for what is the assumption that society can only really be understood through personal actions such as language, feelings and emotions. As stated by Kirby, Kidd, Koubel, Barter, Hope, Kirton, Madry, Manning and Triggs, (2000), that although not perfect the link between the methodologies is that the structuralist-minded sociologists tended to adopt a positivist approach and social action based sociologists tend to adopt a phenomenological approach.

The positivist versus the phenomenological approach to the study of man and society is considered in terms of one of the major debates in social science research. Many of the founding fathers of sociology such as Marx (1818-1883), Comte (1798-1857) and Durkheim (1858-1917) believed that it would be possible to create a science of society based on the same principles and procedures as natural sciences. Positivist theorists believed that this approach would reveal that the evolution of society followed invariable laws and that it would show that the behaviour of man was governed by principles of cause and effect which are just as invariable as the subject of natural sciences. Kirby et al, (2000) states that positivists believe that only by adopting a position of total objectivity towards the subject matter or phenomena can unbiased knowledge or theories be produced.

Comte believed in the hierarchy of science and that each study of science is dependent upon another. His theory ranged from the simplest to the more complex forms of science and that sciences above rely on sciences below stating that sociology was more abstract and difficult than other sciences. Originating from his hierarchy of science, as stated in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004), Comte widely believed that industrialization and the growth of scientific knowledge would lead to secularization, therefore devising his contribution to the study of social dynamics in that, the rule of societies passing through three stages defined by their social relationships. Theological law was a belief in superhuman or divine powers, Metaphysical, a belief in the powers of the individual human mind and the positive law was based on truth produced by collaborative, quantitative and scientific work. An appeal of the positivist approach is that scientific knowledge does not contradict or surprise the experience of the everyday world. It argues that factors, which are not directly observable, such as meanings feelings and purposes, are not particularly important and can be misleading, they therefore, form, reliable quantitative data.

Phenomenological theorists such as Simmel (1858-1918) and Weber (1864-1920) propose that the consciousness is the proper area of study, for its study will reveal meaning. They seek to sense reality and describe in words rather than numbers, trying to produce convincing descriptions of what they experience rather than explanations and causes. Weber disagreed with Comte’s theory, he believed there could be as many sciences as needed, Quantitative and empirical studies cannot tell people what to do, and it is important to go beyond simply recording events and to explain the reasons behind them. When referring to Weber’s idea of ‘puritanism’, a case study in the empirical construction of the protestant ethic, Weber, as cited by Ghosh (2003), clearly states that empirical sources are not tablets of stone, eternally available to the truth seeking historian; rather they have a history of their own. Weber believed that values play a crucial role before during and after research and that social action is governed by the dynamic of individual needs. Weber was committed to the study of causality, the probability that an event would be followed by another event not necessarily of a similar nature. In addition to this Weber also analysed the levels to which rationality was becoming institutionally embedded in modern industrialised societies. Marx’s view of bureaucracy was according to Weber a form of organisation superior to all others, Weber wrote in one of his many books, that without this form of social technology the industrialised countries could not have reached the wealth and extravagance that they currently enjoy, (Weber, 1928) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004). He believed that this capacity for social order would lead to the evolution of the iron cage, and as a result, a society that was technically ordered, rigid and dehumanized. As stated by Giddens (1997) Weber sought to understand social change. He was influenced by Marx but was also strongly critical of some of Marx’s major views, rejected the materialistic conception of history and saw class conflict as less significant than Marx. From a positivist stance, Marx believed that ideas were expressions of public interest and that they served as weapons in the struggle between classes and political parties. Class for Marx, is defined as a social relationship rather than a position or rank in society. Class struggle and owners of production determined economic order. In Marx’s view, classes are defined and structured by work, labour, possessions, production, and the class structures of capitalism consisted of class struggle, political power and the development of a classless society. Marx’s theory of society consisted of two categories of class and that economic order was determined by the two; Bourgeoisie, the capitalist class, the hierarchy, the wealthy, the employers and the Proletariat, who are the workers or the lower class. His view was that as the bourgeoisie employed the proletariat, who has to fulfill his basic needs, the capitalist class could not exist without them. As cited by Haralambos and Holborn (1995), Marxism has sometimes been regarded as a positivist approach since it can be argued that it sees human behaviour as a reaction to the stimulus of the economic infrastructure. Although Weber agreed with Marx in part, that as methods of the organisation increased efficiency and effectiveness of production, Marx’s theory threatened to dehumanise society. Weber’s theories, stratification and views on economic behaviour were rooted from Marx’s view on the economics of a society.

Another positivist view came from Emile Durkheim, whose impression of society was of structures that function apart from human purpose and will. While he considered society to be composed of individuals, his theory was that it is not individuals behaviours, thoughts and actions that construct society, but that society has a structure and existence of its own. His thought was, that society was to have developed from traditional to modern society, through the expansion and development of the division of labour, of course, it is individuals who act, but they do not act on a purely individual basis, they have obligations and duties and are strongly influenced by structure, tradition and the roles of our forefathers. Durkheim considered himself with the issue of social order and how modern society holds together, given that society is composed of many individuals each acting in an individual and autonomous manner. Durkheim’s classic study of suicide, (1970, first published in 1897), as cited in Haralambos and Holborn, (2004) is often seen as a model of positivist research and it does indeed follow many of the methodological procedures of positivism. Although supporting the two different methodologies of sociology, Durkheim was heavily influenced by Weber, who defined sociology as the study of social action between individuals. In contrast to Durkheim’s impression of society and view that society has an existence of its own apart from the individuals in it and so proceeds a proper object of study. As argued by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) where Marx was pessimistic about the division of labour in society, Durkheim was cautiously optimistic. Marx saw the specialised divisions of labour trapping workers in their occupational role, Durkheim saw problems arising from specialisation in industrial society, but believed the promise of the division of labour far outweighed the problems.

While Simmel is generally not regarded as being as influential in sociology as were Marx, Weber and Durkheim, Simmel’s theories, had some similarities to Durkheim’s theory of problems of individuality and society, Weber’s dynamic of individual interests and Marx’s theory of class structure. Simmel considered society to be an association of free individuals and that society could not be studied in the same way as the physical world for example, sociology is more than the discovery of natural laws that govern human interaction. His theory was that society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals and that, sociologists should study the patterns and forms of these associations rather that look for social laws. By defining sociology in this way, Simmel avoids the conflict about the nature of science – whether it should be concerned with timeless, universal laws, instead, there are always multiple ways in which we can look at things. He argued that society was made up of “social facts”, and these social facts coerce and shape the actions of individuals. He argued that in traditional societies, ‘solidarity’ binds together individuals in order to allow society to operate. Social facts only come into being in an interaction, and do not exist within an individual consciousness. Durkheim (1970) as cited in Haralambos and Holborn (2004), stated that the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of individual consciousness, the causes of variations in suicide rates were to be found in social facts and in society rather than the individual. Therefore, social groups represent. He argued that societies that functioned well were societies that held a consensus sway over individuals; society, therefore, was something outside and inside individuals.

As stated by Haralambos and Holborn (1995) to phenomenology, it is impossible to measure objectively any aspect of human behaviour, through language humans distinguish between different types of events, actions, objects and people. The process of categorisation is subjective; it depends upon the opinions of the observer. Statistics are simply the product of the opinions of those who produce them. The distinction between positivist and phenomenological approaches is not as clear-cut as this assignment implies. There is a considerable debate over whether or not a particular theory should be labelled positivist or phenomenological. Often many of the theorists lie somewhere in between, some taking views from either side. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) argue that in terms of sociology, the positivist approach makes the following assumptions; the behaviour of humans, like the behaviour of matter, can be objectively measured, just as the behaviour of matter can be quantified by measures such as weight, temperature and pressure. Methods of objective measurement can be devised for human behaviour, such measurement is essential to explain behaviour. Early Positivists such as Comte, and Durkheim argued that objectivity was attainable by adopting a scientific methodology. Marx also believed that his sociology was objective and scientific, although he saw society very differently. Weber did not think complete value freedom was possible, but he did believe that once a topic for research had been chosen, the researcher could be objective. He argued that sociologists should not make value judgments, that is, they should not state what aspects of society they found desirable or undesirable.

“It is plainly nonsensical to throw into one big pot labelled “sociology” all those researches which could have been satisfactorily conducted by national economy, history of civilisation, philosophy, political science, statistics, demography and ethics. That gives us a new name, but no new knowledge”. Simmel, G (1858), cited in American Journal of Sociology [online]) (1898)

Reference List

• Ghosh, P, (2003), Max Weber’s Idea of ‘Puritanism’: A Case Study In The Empirical Construction Of The Protestant Ethic, History of European Ideas, [online], 29;2, 183-221, Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9C-48D2RD7-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=10803212fe05d9a06d9a7ce5cfaec919 [Accessed November 21, 2008]
• Giddens, A, (1997) Sociology, 3rd Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge
• Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, (1995), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 4th Edition, Collins Educational, London
• Haralambos, M, Holborn, M, (2004), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 6th Edition, Collins Educational, London
• Kirby, M, Kidd, W, Koubel, F, Barter, J, Hope, T, Kirton, A, Madry, N, Manning, P, Triggs, K, (2000), Sociology in Perspective, Heinemann Educational, Oxford
• Simmel, G (1898) The Persistence of Social Groups, American Journal of Sociology, [online], 5; 3, 662-663. Available at: http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Simmel/Simmel_1897a.html [Accessed November 11th 2008]