Can someone quickly explain Subjective oriented sociology vs. Objective oriented sociology?

Question

Thanks

Answer 1

Objectivity versus subjectivity is at the heart of the debate of proper methods of research within sociology (and possibly other disciplines). On the one hand are quantitative researchers. Quantitative research is based on the positivist approach. That is, that researchers should be "hands-off" (objective). On the other hand there are (and this is simplifying and generalizing the issue) qualitative researchers. Qualitative research is inherently more subjective.

Each broad approach offers pros and cons. Quantitative research can be generalized to a large population because it is based on (generally) somewhat large surveys that are representative (you really need a methods course to get a full understanding what represenativeness and generalizability. Generalizability is not a 'bad' thing. In fact, it is essential to quantitative research). Qualitative research is valuable in a number of ways, but one of the most important advantages it offers is that it allows for a deeper understanding of a research problem (whereas quantitative research offers more breadth).

Then again there are researchers who use mixed methods (a combination of qualitative/quantative as the name implies). This is more common in todays academic climate, but is still much less common than a singluar approach. It is also looked down upon by many quatoids (a somewhat degragatory name for researchers who use quantative researcher methods exclusively).

So, to sum up and offer a concise explanation of objective vs. subjective socoilogy: objectivists tend to use quantitative methods (and believe that researchers must always maintain a distance from those being researched); subjectivists believe that it is acceptable to have some interaction with those being studied in order to fully understand the particular phenomena they are interested in studying.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

Subjectivity Definition Sociology

Answer 3

In a larger sense, though, no methods can be truly objective since all of them are the product of a subjective point of view, complete with their own biases and prejudices.

Just as psychology is nothing more than the process of the human brain trying to understand itself, sociology is nothing more than the attempt of a small society (our field) attempting to understand much larger societies.

It is true, though, that our small society adheres to the scientific method and realizes that all knowledge must be subject to rigorous empirical scrutiny, so we are different in that respect.

But the great thing about sociology is that we recognize our own subjectivity, and are thus better equipped to deal with it. At this time, we may not be able to come up with an objective set of methods that are 'right' or 'wrong', but we can come up with methods that are more or less effective in predicting and explaining social phenomena.

Probably the last thing we want to do is adopt the way of the dogmatic religionist and assume that we alone can see the world objectively, by virtue of our self-evidently superior culture. Science must always be subject to revision, or else it ceases to be science.

For now we're a fairly new field, but I believe we will catch up to the other sciences (at least in terms of credibility and our ability to predict and explain our subject) as time goes on.

BTW, here's an old joke for you:
Q: How do you know that Crest toothpaste is right for you?
A: Because 4 out of 5 middle-aged, white, protestant doctors who don't even know you said so.

Answer 4

Psychology. I took both psychology and sociology and I was able to pay attention in psychology. Sociology is ok too but it just wasn't as interesting.

Answer 5

Subjective means you are involved, objective means you are separated from what ever is going on. Objectivity is difficult but necessary for research.