Revision summary
Non-positivist method studies meaning, context, and domination. It is scientific when claims are checkable and comparative. Weber, Geertz, Marx, and Harding illustrate disciplined versions. Oakley’s housework interviews corrected official work variables. It is unscientific as private story or as a fake national rate.
Model answer
Introduction
Non-positivist methodology studies meaning, context, and critique rather than copying a thin natural-science model. It is scientific when it makes public, checkable claims. It is unscientific when it treats empathy as proof.
Body
What non-positivist method is
- Max Weber’s interpretative sociology: Verstehen plus causal adequacy.
- Phenomenology and ethnography: Alfred Schutz’s life-world, Clifford Geertz’s thick description.
- Critical traditions: Karl Marx’s critique of appearance; feminist standpoint after Sandra Harding and Dorothy Smith.
- Historical comparison: Barrington Moore, not a laboratory.
Why it can be scientific
- Science here means disciplined inference, not a sacred physics costume.
- Karl Popper’s falsifiability can apply to interpretative claims: a reading can fail against documents.
- Triangulation, respondent checks, and prolonged fieldwork, as in William Foote Whyte, reduce private projection.
- Weber’s ideal type is a tool of comparison, hence of test.
Illustrations
- Weber’s Protestant Ethic is non-positivist in method and still an evidenced historical argument.
- Village ethnography that maps who eats with whom is checkable by another observer.
- Ann Oakley’s interviews on housework produced a finding that Census work-status had missed, later echoed in time-use files.
When it is not scientific
- Unchecked storytelling, or using standpoint as a veto on evidence.
- Treating a single life-history as a national rate, which NFHS and the Census still own.
Verdict
- Non-positivist method is scientific as interpretative and critical discipline.
- It is not scientific as a licence to skip comparison.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD NP[Non-positivist method] --> V[Verstehen critique ethnography] V --> PUB[Public checks] PUB --> SCI[Scientific] WISH[Unchecked empathy] --> NOT[Not scientific]
Conclusion
Yes, non-positivist methodology can be scientific if claims are public, comparative, and open to failure. Weber, Geertz, and feminist standpoint illustrate that path. It fails when meaning is only the researcher’s wish.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Explain Durkheim's basic arguments on suicide. Can you analyse high suicide rates of contemporary Indian society with Durkheim's theory?
Next question in the 2018 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Must science be quantitative?
Quantification helps some questions. Meaning and critique are still scientific objects.
-
Is standpoint the opposite of science?
Harding’s strong objectivity treats named standpoint as a control, not a replacement for evidence.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2020 · Q1(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Is sociology a value-free science ? Discuss. -
2020 · Q1(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Methodology is a system of rules, principles and procedures, which forms. scientific investigation. Comment. -
2018 · Q5(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Does scientific method make Sociology a Science? Illustrate your answer with Durkheim's method. -
2017 · Q1(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Examine ethnomethodological and phenomenological perspective as critique of positivism -
2017 · Q1(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Illustrate with example the significance of variable in sociology research -
2016 · Q1(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
What is 'value-free sociology'? Clarify -
2016 · Q3(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Describe the basic postulates of scientific method. How far are these followed in sociological research? -
2016 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Examine Max Weber's method of maintaining objectivity in social research.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2018 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
The focal point of sociology rests on interaction. How do you distinguish it from common sense?
Sociology
Sociology focuses on interaction as action oriented to others. Weber, Mead, and Goffman named that object. Common sense is Schutz’s unexamined stock of typifications. Durkheim’s rates and caste studies show why everyday talk is not enough. Sociology uses common-sense language and then tests it.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2018 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Distinguish between fact and value in Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Sociological Thinkers: Karl Marx
Weber split value-relevance of the problem from value-discipline in proof. The question of modern capitalism is culturally selected. The claimed fact is elective affinity with inner-worldly asceticism. Ideal types organise the comparison. The book does not preach Calvinism as a duty.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2018 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Do you think T and Me are central terms in Mead's work
Sociology
Yes: I and Me are central in Mead. Me is the organised attitudes of others, the self as object. I is the unpredictable response that allows novelty. Play, game, and generalised other form the Me. Blumer’s interactionism inherits the pair.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.