Anglo-American sociology defines itself by research methods rather than by theory
Evidence
Within the US and the UK the one unifying factor which allows those working from different presuppositions and within different fields of interest all to claim that what they are doing is ‘sociological’ has been that of empirical research methods. In addition to providing a common body of knowledge which unites all or almost all social scientists, sound methodology has been elevated to the status of a gold standard by which the validity of any piece of research should be measured. While the intention is clearly to align the social sciences with the natural sciences and avoid the kind of subjective, value-laden studies that have dogged sociology’s reputation in the past, some would argue that this preoccupation with methods has gone too far. Peter Berger, for example, labels it ‘methodological fetishism – the dominance of method over content’. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 41
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s thesis about Luhmann’s system trust: methodological orthodoxy is itself a kind of institutionalized system that sociologists place ‘faceless commitment’ in rather than engaging theory critically.
- SHARE: Peter Berger’s coinage ‘methodological fetishism – the dominance of method over content’ is the kind of one-liner a sociology colleague would love.
- DEFINE: Introduces and names Berger’s concept of methodological fetishism.
Related
- Sociology’s fixation on methodology has displaced theory and overstates the reliability of empiric research. (similarity 0.90)
- Luhmann’s methods derive from his theoretical problems, not methodological orthodoxy. (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- Sociology’s method-driven path has failed to deliver its Enlightenment promises
#expands(0.60) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 44 - Enlightenment-based sociology fragments because theories depend on observers’ beliefs about human nature
#complicates(0.50) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 14