Fact and Value - Term Paper Example

Fact and Value Introduction The distinction between values and facts in social sciences has faced much opposition from different critics. While some social scientists insist that social sciences is a scientific field which upholds value-neutrality, others are in the opinion that it is not possible to separate the two concepts since value adds meaning to facts and statistical evidence. The notion that sociological theory in indeed a ‘theory’ which upholds objectivity has also faced much criticism from scientists who view that sociological theory is not a theory but just a model. Facts are defined as something which has actually happened or how it exits in reality. A fact is known in all truth universally and can be evidenced without being challenged because it is objective. On the other hand, values are subjective and differ across regions and communities. Values are shaped by a community’s perception of ideals, norms, customs and beliefs. They may be indicating positive attributes such as honesty, integrity or cleanliness or even negative values such as laziness or cruelty. In most communities, values and facts are intertwined and therefore it is difficult to repeat the two. This is because; values give meaning to facts the same way facts give meaning to value. This paper serves to answer the question; why fact and value is important in social science research? Discussions Values, facts and scoial scince Social sciences studies and experiments are conducted with the sole aim of assessing the meaning and certainties behind a phenomena. The facts presents to explain the phenomena are based on the values behind that phenomena such that both values and facts are intertwined in the study. According to weber, (1949), research is conducted on order to provide an explanation to the already known facts and to explore universal laws of human actions. Therefore, in social sciences, facts and values are connected and that is the only way they are able to give meaning to life; when combined (Barton, 1999, p232). This is because research and social studies are empirical and societal in nature, it is perpetual, evolving and changing and thus we cannot classify the social sciences as static whose facts and objectivity remain the same till infinity. Thus, the present knowledge is not perfect and needs to be constructed from time to time though scientific laws. In this case, values play a central role in this process. On the other hand, facts are used to explain the norms and values which are specific to a certain community. We can therefore note that social scientists collect the data and explain it thereby interchanging values and facts. Human beings and are surrounded by phenomena involving values, culture, traditions and norms. The researcher and the respondents both form part of this society which is shaped by what surround them. In such a case, they are not able to avoid the cultural and traditional implications of the research or subject under perspective. Cultural science therefore takes culture as the object of social science and thus should recognize that the requirement of cultural science is embroidered on the fact that human beings give significance and value to the behaviors they make up and expose to the world. Weber holds the idea that research cannot be successfully be completed in a vacuum where there are facts which are not interpreted using the cultural implications and framework of the society. This is so because cultural facts are embedded in cultural values and therefore achieving value-neural research is not possible. There is a huge degree of interrelationship and independence between facts and values in social sciences such that it is difficult to separate them in cultural context. Their relationship imply that cultural facts are used by social scientists to give meaning to norms, traditions and values of the cultural society. Connection between ethics and social sciences Social scientists always take sides on issues regarding morality which raises the distinction between relative progress and lack of progress in social science. This raises the issue of distinction between facts and evaluation. This distinction is mostly ignored by many people due to the popularity of the notion that social sciences often take different sides regarding the moral question. This implies that the argument of one party will often attract criticisms from other parties. This introduces the notion of facts and value. A statement of fact describes the exact way things happened while at the same time remaining neutral regarding the issue of the best way they should have happened, how it should have been made better or worse. A statement of fact is therefore value-free as they do not attach any value to the statements uttered. On the other hand, an evaluative statement is usually ‘value-laden’ as it attaches value to the statements by evaluating the best and worst sides of a statement. An evaluative statement adds value by expressing satisfaction or dissatisfaction, praise or blame, approval or disapproval, suggestion on the correct way something out to have been done. Facts are very objectives and presents the facts only as they are, example, saying someone was killed is more factual that saying one was murdered. The word ‘killed’ is a statement of facts without adding nay subjectivity while ‘murdered ‘indicates that the death was wrongful and attaches the value of whether the action ought to have happened or not. As such, there is a presumed moral stand when one uses the word murder as opposed to using the word killed. There is traditional view which holds that social sciences should be morally neutral and thus value free. This departs from other natural sciences such as law, theories, explanations, prediction of physics and chemistry and description from experiments; they make value judgments on facts by using their specialized expertise knowledge on their fields. The description of such facts follows the expression of their views other than their scientific beliefs. These beliefs are combined with their own moral affiliations to make judgment on facts. The judgment of an expert on any field based on their independent moral beliefs combined with their principles. While some philosophers hold that moral judgments should not be part of scientific decisions since do not create any knowledge, some decision are based on moral clams based on the exposure to society such as responsibilities towards preservation of scarce resources in the society which will influence the expertise’s judgment. Skeptical view of ethics holds that social sciences should adhere to the freedom from value of the natural sciences if they seek to be knowledgeable. The findings of social scientists should be analyzed carefully to make sure that a lot of values imposed in the findings do not contaminate the findings. Too much value in social scientists limits the amount of knowledge obtained because even though there is the possibility of obtaining moral knowledge, there is a very huge possibility of disagreement as people may not share many beliefs. Thus, moral knowledge is difficult to achieve unanimity. Moral certainty of a particular individual is vale-laden and yields authoritarianism, intolerance of other and totalitarianism. This leads to limitations in the type of knowledge obtained in such circumstances which prompts social scientists to advocate for a methodological principle of “value neutrality". This concept is also enumerated by even those who do not advocate for “value neutrality". Natural science is mostly characterized by value-free knowledge which is also spread among quantitative of social scientists, economists and psychologists. For instance, economists insist on having positive science as opposed to normative science. This belief holds that the reasons for lack of substantive policy recommendations are because the findings for economic discipline are normative. Advocate of positive social sciences deliver a practical argument in support of their conclusion which does not attract much opposition. As such, ti is important to avoid the bias caused by normative science which leads to the compromise of the objectivity intended in the findings. The objectivity and factual reliability of social science can be destroyed by personal values imposed on the conclusion which advance personal preferences and even the utmost moral notions. Lack of objectivity as a result of such biases can jeopardize the aims of social sciences by not observing value neutrality as they impair factual judgments. Notion of separation of values from facts using empiricist and interpretative approaches Social sciences are involved with the study of human behavior which is a complicated paradigm due to the changing nature of human relations which makes them unpredictable and relative. The patterns of human behavior change with time, situation and space. Therefore, the study and interpretation of social sciences should be guided by the social structures which guide human behavior. Research methods of social science are not adequate without values as they play a huge role in shaping the behavior studied by the social sciences. For example, to conduct research in a foreign culture, one needs to understand the culture and beliefs of that community in order to make proper and adequate interpretation of facts researched. The culture and beliefs used to interpret the facts is based on the values of that community. Value is empirically treated in research. In applied situations, it emerges into view and their implications are taken into perspective in particular terms. With the emergence of new values, there are factual consequences which can be judged. It is therefore not determined by any form of fact because it is purely free. Empirical research seeks the objectivity of the research while maintaining their neutral stance. On the other hand, interpretative research seeks to identify the consideration of individual focus on the issue. Interpretative researchers , do not therefore, ask for social science to be value-free as they perceive the value and facts resulting into meaning as combined with no intention of making the distinction (May, 1993). The interpretative school of through use the hermeneutic approach which recognizes the role played by values in social science research (Barton, 1999). According to Empirical research , social sciences research findings are analyzed from empirical facts and evidence. That knowledge is therefore empirical and free in intensity. They hold that social science is based on justifications and empirical observations. The though system and the evidence from research is thus used to create ideas which aid in assigning meaning to the evidence and facts and the evidence available enables the social researcher to support their claims. Objectivtiy in Empirical Research Most research performed by different researchers globally have made attempts to influence the society in some ways. However, laws governing social sciences are very different to those governing natural sciences. Empirical approach to research concerns itself with facts and evidence collected by means of sensory perception. This approach developed into theory which advocated for knowledge which arose from experience and proof of such meanings arising from sensory perception (Barton, 1999, p232). The scientific study of empirical research requires that knowledge be evidenced by facts resulting from the five senses or from evidence arising from the use of standard scientific instruments. According to the empiricist approach, research is conducted by using only pure scientific procedures which depart from any type of value systems or social orders (Barton, 1999). Empiricism was developed for application in more operational problem-solving views. With the changing trends in the development of social sciences, different forms of research were developed with changes in time. The traditional empiricist research involved mathematical computations involving mathematical data which was value-neutral without considering the fact that there was variations in different phenomena in human behavior and other social conditions. However, there may be a deviation in data as a result of changes in social behavior which is only revealed though positivist traditions. Interpretation of facts revolves around the researcher giving meaning to the interactions observed between the senses and the subject under investigation. The researcher alters the tools and methods of research so as to achieve a high level of standard objectives by applying them on what is already known before conducting investigation of an unknown object. This is done to ensure reliability and consistence of results. Thus, this school of thought can be analyzed to reveal that values and facts form part of the cultural society they are viewed in and that they are intertwined in giving meaning as values assign meaning though facts gotten from observation and evidence and at the same time, facts give meaning through values. Values and norms are responsible for guiding the principles sf human interactions and their interaction without values or societal norms will go contrary to the set standards of behavior which are help with utmost esteem and respect. A society which is not governed by values preset of norms is characterized by chaos and confusion. Therefore, observation and underlying frameworks of values and norms are important in guiding the research through making meaning of facts and evidence from their research (Couvalis, 1997, p40- 45). Preservation of objectivity in interpretative approach Social research using interpretative approach has faced challenges of maintaining its objectivity since the meaning given to phenomena in this approach is value-laden thereby making it very subjective. The issue arising from this approach is how objectivity will be achieved in such a situation. According to Kockelmans, although the meaning given to lived expresses is subjective because of differences in individual perception, they are nor very subjective in that extreme. This is because the perceptions are shared and are common among members of the society leading to intersubjectivity which is accessible to both the researcher and the respondents. With this similarities, the researcher is able to make clear explanations to the data collected. He also notes that there is no threats of subjectivity on the researcher’s part since the values and the norms which is said to influence the explanation of research findings are with the community and not the researcher. Therefore, the research should be able to make observations and then make conclusive deductions without being influenced by the values of the community. This reduces the subjectivity which appears of first impression. Objectivity is also ensured by established criteria which allow for impartiality in the interpretation of scientific findings regarding social phenomena. In this case, Kockelmans has provided a remedy of the situation by using "canons" which specifically ensure that the researcher achieves the intersubjetcivity validity in the results. The five canons are; that the phenomenon should not undergo any changes during and after evaluation or research and the validity of the interpretation must be achieved; there should be enough interpretations of the phenomena where one is chosen for meeting the maximum reasonableness of the phenomena while maintaining their independence; careful investigation should be carried out to ensure that the research has vast knowledge and exposure to the phenomena in order to enhance interpretative understanding; there should be enough scrutiny of the interpreted results back and forth to correct and modify the results making sure that the phenomena is understand in parts and in whole; and lastly, the researcher is required to show step by step interpretation of phenomena in its own situation before its application on the current issue under investigation. Objectivity of Sociological theory ‘Scientific theorists,’ are a group of sociologists which are opposed to epistemological and ontological pluralism. They hold that sociological theory is scientific and therefore it should have an interpretation or explanation which is scientific in nature. If any sociological research do not receive a scientific explanation, then it does not qualify to be a scientific theory. They view sociology as the science of society which applies scientific methods and tools in the study of social phenomena. Social science is like any other science and such, it must offer objective and factual accounts of exactly what things are. This is guided by scientific laws (Braithwaite 1959:1). This implies that sociological theory cannot give partial meaning to the social world but instead, it should provide a holistic sense through the use of established laws as they are able to predict and explain the phenomena under investigation. Sociological theory departs from the notion of culture shaping the trends of meaning acquisition in social phenomena. The sociologists argue that scientists do not take part in dialogues with classic materials and cultural dialogues of the past to give meaning to current issues. For example; research on current medicine using theory will have no bearing of confusion with the history of medicine and neither will research on biology confuse the current theories on study of medicine with the history of medicine. This means that even with the changing times, trends and approaches, there are more objective and viable theories of conducting social research without implications of value (Merton, 1948:165). This argument implies that since social science is a science juts like the others, its theories should be in alignment with other developed and mature scientific theories in order to qualify to be a theory. Theory is an explanation of a particular phenomenon. Therefore, there cannot exits a theory unless there is an explanations of particular phenomena. When a researcher has either the properties and categories of that phenomena or the changes from one state to another, there is no theory until one has the properties of the phenomena, proposition on the relationship between them and those propositions form an empirical system. Arguments bout theory should focus on an original framework that does not change (Homans 1964a:812). Homans, (1964a: 811) warns about telling the students about the sociological theory when they do not know what theory is in the first place. Turner, (2004) concurs with Homans by arguing that the concept of theory in sociology is more often wrongly applied since sociological theories are not theorized and thus they cannot be classified as theories. Turner gives an example of laws which are abstract, simplistic and do not uphold any concern for causality, and those are qualified examples of theories as opposed to those in sociology which are concerned with causal model explained by used of statistics (Turner, 2004). ‘Scientific theorists,’ express a problem with such definitions of theory because they are more of models and nothing about them feature them as theories. Many sociologists , however, hold that such models are theories. The argument here is that a theory should be traceable to a specific period of observation in definite times and places and therefore, it should be abstract in order of it to surpass the places and times indicated. This means that sociological models are not theories and their features cannot make them one. A theory should clearly state that an explanation of particular phenomena by presenting the facts such that theory is X and not Y and therefore, X is the true theory and Y is an imitation of it (Turner 1985:25). The challenge posed here is of epistemological and methodological nature where the question arises as to how one knows or finds out the true inferences of theory without making mistakes. There is a question of the justifications one needs to give in order to establish a claim that a particular model is a theory. This question is answered by scientific theorists who hold that the answer rests on assessment of the true meaning of natural science and what in meant by theory in natural science. The meaning from natural scientists is what sociologists should enumerate as theory (Homans 1987:68).This is meant to remove the sociologist from the perception of implying that there is a sociological theory where it does not exist. As such, what is referred to theory in this context can be referred to as ‘history of sociological theory’ as it contains more past events defining the current phenomena. This poses a debate which is much arguable. Sociologists argue that the notion of theory held by the ‘Scientific theorists, signify what they think theory ought to be but not the universally acceptable definition of theory. On the other hand, if reasoning on the dispute in this case means that conclusion is drawn from the premise where it is drawn from, then it true to argue that sociology has come up with laws which looks as much like those of scientific science but they are not relay scientific in all sense. But the issue of what theory ‘ought to be’ is much intertwined with the answer of ‘what is sociology exactly?’. There has not been any clear clarification to be presented here about the conclusion of this debate which raises so many opposing views of sociology ought to be and what it means in sociological research. This is mainly attributed to the fact that many people do not understand what exactly sociology is and what it deals with. As such, they cannot argue on a framework and explanations of something they have no complete understanding on. Until we understand the true implications of sociology, then that is the only time we can classify if there is a sociological model of a sociological theory. One thing though, presents the departing point of sociological theory and other scientific theories in that, while other scientific theories take no account of the understanding of their environment to give explanation of a particular phenomenon, sociological theory takes much background information from the society and uses it to give meaning and interpretation to results of the research. Thus, it is ‘value-laden’ while scientific theories are ‘value-neutral’. Arguments The basic argument emerging from the critical theorists about value and facts in social science is that it is not possible to remain value-free in social sciences. It is easier for natural sciences to remain neutral than for social sciences. While some social scientists hold that it is impossible to remain neutral and maintain high levels of objectivity, others insist that is not morally desirable. The argument that social science cannot maintain neutrality is consistent with the notion of being morally undesirable for social science to maintain neutrality. These two arguments holds that by proposing social science which is free from any value, the resultant from of science would not be a science of human action which would explain significantly the significance of such actions. Value-free social science implies that human beings are held as morally responsible creatures that are subject to ethical concern. This will threaten the social scientist’s responsibility of making improvements in their environments by improving moral perception of the people around them. An argument about the unavoidable intersection of value and facts holds that objectivity does not exist in both natural science and social science. According to a recognized writer Kuhn, the notion of neutrality in social science has already been challenged ideally by epistemological approach to study of social sciences of the sociology of science. The history of value and facts holds a baseless ground which cannot sufficiently categorize them as two distinct features. Another argument implying that it is not possible to remain value-free in social sciences holds that the world of research is full of relativity. Even the truth is relative where facts are made to be true according to their construction and perception of those receiving the truth. It is therefore what we perceive that shapes our implications of the truth. The truth is taken to be a fact because it cannot change with time or circumstances. Therefore, facts can be taken as social truths which are framed under values of that society such that those issues can be illuminated on by looking at several angles to what is considered the truth. The manipulation of several angles of the truth will depend on the values of that society which intertwined both values and facts. In closing, this paper has served to show us the importance of value and facts in social science. We have noted that it is not possible to maintain objectivity of research especially where research entails a community where the research and the responds have a history in because objectivity will be influenced by the values of the community. Both values and facts are important in social science since they contribute to meaning interpretation of research findings. Social science can be interpreted though empiricist and interpretative approaches. Although empiricist has faced challenges and criticism on issues of maintaining objectivity, interpretative has developed five cannon which ensure that they achieve the intended level of objectivity in research while making use values in assigning meaning to their findings. References Abend, G., (2013). The Meaning of ‘Theory’! Northwestern University. Abbott, A. (1988). “Transcending General Linear Reality.” Sociological Theory 6:169–86. Abel, T. (1952). “The Present Status of Social Theory.” American Sociological Review 17:156– 64. Abend, G. (2006). “Styles of Sociological Thought: Sociologies, Epistemologies, and the Mexican and U.S.Quests for Truth.” Sociological Theory 24(1):1–41. Adams, J. (2006). “Why Pluralism Still Makes Sense for Sociological Theory: Reply to Stephen Sanderson.” Perspectives 28(3):1–3. Albrow, M. (1999). Sociology: The Basics. London: Routledge. Audi, R. (1989). Practical Reasoning. London and New York: Routledge. Berger.,P.,&Luckmann, T.(1966).The Social Construction of Reality. London: The Penguin Pres. Blumer, H. (1954). “What is Wrong with Social Theory?” American Sociological Review 19:3– 10. Camic, C. and N. Gross. (1998). “Contemporary Developments in Sociological Theory: Current Projects and Conditions of Possibility.” Annual Review of Sociology 24:453–76. Chafetz, J. S. (1993). “Sociological Theory: A Case of Multiple Personality Disorder.” Perspectives 6(1):1–2. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fine, G. A. (2001). “Message from the Chair: Sociological Theory and Empirical Research.” Perspectives 24(4):1, 4. Goldstone, J. A. (1998). “Initial Conditions, General Laws, Path Dependence, and Explanation in Historical Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 104:829–45. Goode, W. J. (1973). Explorations in Social Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Healy, P., Facts, Values, and Objectivity in the Human Sciences, Austogung. Vol. XIII. No. 2 ISSN: 0733-4311,University College, Cork, Ireland Homans, G. C. (1987). “Behaviourism and After.” Pp. 58–81 in Social Theory Today, edited by A. Giddens and J.H. Turner. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jay, M. (1996). “For Theory.” Theory and Society 25(2):167–83. Keller, R. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. Translated by B. Nerlich. London; New York: Routledge. Kidd, D. (2006). “Close and Open-Form Approaches to Social Theory: A Pedagogical Rejoinder to Sanderson.”Perspectives 28(3):5–6.198 Paige, J. M. (1999). “Conjuncture, Comparison, and Conditional Theory in Macrosocial Inquiry.” American Journal of Sociology 105:781–800. Quadagno, J. and S. J. Knapp. (1992). “Have Historical Sociologists Forsaken Theory? Thoughts on the History/Theory Relationship.” Sociological Methods and Research 20(4):481–507. Ritzer, G. (1980). Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Rosenberg, A. (2008). Philosophy of social science, pp. 225-230. Boulder, CO, Westview Press. 3ed edition Read More