Can sociology really be "value free?" Should it be? How might sociologists' values influence their research on such issues as capital punishment, euthanasia, and/or abortion?

Sociology should aim to be objective, or "value free," although this may not be attainable. If a sociologist's personal views and values are included in a study, the full picture may not be shown. The views or facts that don't agree with the sociologist - if only subconsciously - could be suppressed or slip through entirely undetected. To counteract this, sociologists could analyze their own biases and subconscious prejudices when beginning a study, and make extra effort to study the areas they seem to have an aversion to. They could consult other sociologists, or anyone else, with opposing viewpoints to get their opinion on the given subject and incorporate their perspective.

Peter L. Berger, a famous pioneer in the field of sociology, once said that "...knowledge is somewhat like trying to push a bus in which one is riding."(1) He states that the study of sociology ultimately leads to epistemological questions; questions that attempt to differentiate justified belief from opinion. With regard to the question of sociology attempting to be objective, this quote is important for multiple reasons:

  1. We are a part of the very phenomenon being studied, and therefore cannot see the entire environment from an outside, or objective, perspective. If an ant, or even multiple ants, were to try to analyze how his colony operated, he could never get the big picture simply because of his location. We, on the outside, can watch, record, and analyze how the ants function, compare them with other insects, set up different scenarios to see how they behave, et cetera.
  2. No matter how hard we try, we can never eliminate our own personal views and beliefs. We can minimize their effect in our studies and consciously counteract our biases and prejudices, but there will always be a lingering element of the individual. No matter how well you disguise it, you are still you, riding that same bus down the same street as everyone else.
If a pro-choice sociologist conducted a study on abortion rates in America, the overall perspective would most likely be optimistic, whereas a anti-abortion sociologist may cast things in a more negative light. The figures may even be the same, but simply the way reports are worded could be the deciding factor. If abortion rates decreased over the past year, pro-choice and pro-life sociologists would probably agree it is a sign that more women are planning ahead and being more careful. The reason behind the change is where they could differ: The pro-life sociologist may believe it shows that pro-life campaigns are working, whereas the pro-choice sociologist may cite society's view on abortion and the diminishing availability of abortion doctors as the causes of the decline, for example. Undoubtedly each sociologist would take into account other factors and perspectives, but their own opinions would persist.

Objectivity is desirable, but unattainable. We cannot step outside the human race to analyze what is going on or completely let go of our own views, but we can keep ourselves in check when studying other races, groups, and people. Perfection may be unattainable, but it remains a noble goal.

(1) Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. "Introduction: The Problem of the Sociology of Knowledge" Research Brought To Life: Florida State University College of Criminology & Criminal Justice. 7 June 2009 <http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/SocialConstructionOfReality10-17.htm>.

7 June, 2009