Home UPSC optional Sociology Paper 01 Sociology as Science Major Theoretical Strands of Research Methodology

Major Theoretical Strands of Research Methodology

Research methodology is a broad term that encompasses the entire research process — including the underlying approach and ideology, the methods and design used, as well as the data, assumptions, and logical reasoning involved.

Sociologists study human society through different lenses. Some examine the overall structure of society, adopting a macro perspective that focuses on large-scale social phenomena such as institutions and social inequality.

Others use a micro perspective, concentrating on the day-to-day social interactions between individuals.

These two approaches have led sociologists to develop various theoretical perspectives, each built on a distinct set of assumptions about how society functions.

Macropositivist

Positivism – Many early sociologists, often regarded as the founding fathers of the discipline, believed that society could be studied using the same scientific methods applied in fields like chemistry and biology. This scientific approach to understanding society is known as positivism.

Functionalism - The Consensus Approach

Functional analysis, also called functionalism or structural functionalism, has deep roots in the origins of sociology. It appears prominently in the works of early thinkers like Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, was systematically developed by Emile Durkheim, and later refined by Talcott Parsons.

Functionalism starts by observing the structural aspects of society. It assumes that social relationships are organized according to established rules, making them regular, patterned, and recurrent. Shared values offer broad guidelines for behavior, which are then expressed through more specific roles and norms.

According to functionalism, the structure of society consists of the total set of normative behaviors—essentially the network of social relationships shaped by norms. Functionalists believe that every society has certain basic needs, or functional prerequisites, that must be met for it to continue and remain stable.

From this viewpoint, society is seen as a system of interrelated parts. For the system to function, these parts must be integrated to some degree. A minimum level of integration is therefore considered essential for social survival. Many functionalists argue that this integration—and the resulting order and stability—comes primarily from value consensus. Understanding the origins and functioning of this value consensus is a central concern of functionalist analysis.

Criticisms of Functionalism

Conflict theorists criticize functionalism for portraying society as overly harmonious and idealistic—almost “utopian.” While functionalists argue that social institutions exist because they fulfill functions that maintain stability, conflict theorists emphasize that societies are shaped by power struggles, inequalities, and competing interests. According to them, social stratification does not naturally promote harmony; instead, it is often upheld through control, constraints, and even coercion, aspects that functionalism tends to overlook.

Whereas functionalists view value consensus as the foundation of social order, conflict theorists see consensus as temporary and fragile, frequently maintained through ongoing negotiations over power and resources. They argue that conflict is not only inevitable but can also contribute to stability by prompting necessary adjustments and reforms. For a comprehensive understanding of society, conflict theorists call for examining both conflict and consensus, showing that social equilibrium arises not simply from shared values but often from the management or resolution of competing interests.

Functionalists, however, focus primarily on how societies meet their functional prerequisites, directing their attention toward functions rather than dysfunctions. As a result, many social institutions are interpreted as inherently useful or beneficial. Institutions such as the family, religion, and stratification systems are even regarded as indispensable.

This perspective has led to the criticism that functionalism carries a conservative bias, reinforcing the status quo. By viewing existing social arrangements as necessary or advantageous, functionalism tends to resist or dismiss proposals for radical social change.

The Conflict Approach

Society is viewed as a collection of diverse groups with competing values and interests.
These groups differ mainly in their access to wealth, power, and prestige, creating structural inequalities.
Social structures are seen as benefiting dominant groups while disadvantaging others.
The conflict perspective includes two major approaches:
- Marxian Approach – emphasizes economic determinism and class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat.
- Neo-Conflict Approach – focuses on power differentials, authority, and broader forms of inequality beyond class.
Conflict theorists stress social inequality and competition as central to society.
They view social change as necessary and often beneficial.
Social order is believed to be imposed by powerful groups, not produced by natural consensus.
Conflict theorists typically challenge and criticize the status quo.
Society is seen as a system where individuals and groups compete for scarce resources.
While Marx focused on class conflict, modern conflict theorists analyze multiple levels of conflict, including smaller groups and everyday social interactions

The Marxian Approach to Conflict

Karl Marx established the theoretical basis of the conflict perspective by highlighting class struggle as the key force behind social change. He argued that society is divided into two main classes: the bourgeoisie, or the capitalist class that owns the means of production, and the proletariat, or the working class. Their interests are fundamentally opposed—the bourgeoisie aims to preserve its control over resources and production, while the proletariat seeks fair wages and better living conditions. Marx viewed this class conflict as unavoidable, rooted in deep economic inequalities. The bourgeoisie maintains its dominance by using its power to impose its own ideology, resulting in the exploitation and subordination of the working class. According to Marx, these economic and social class struggles are essential for understanding how societies function and how social change unfolds.

The Neo-conflict Approach

The neo-conflict approach recognizes that conflict is not always harmful; instead, it can play a constructive role in maintaining social stability and order. Unlike Marx’s emphasis on economic determinism, this perspective suggests that conflict often stems from differences in power and authority rather than solely from issues related to property or production.

Neo-conflict theorists maintain that in pluralistic societies such as the United States, conflicts naturally emerge among groups defined by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, and political interests. These conflicts can promote adaptation and compromise, helping sustain the stability of social structures. For instance, disputes over national budget priorities require competing groups to negotiate and make concessions, preventing any one group from dominating the process. Such negotiations foster social cohesion by preserving the overall structure of society without compromising its fundamental values.

A central idea in neo-conflict theory is that external threats can bring together groups with otherwise conflicting interests, as a shared challenge often reduces internal tensions. Conflict becomes harmful only when it threatens or undermines the core values upon which society rests.

C. Wright Mills and the “Power Elite”

Sociologist C. Wright Mills expanded the conflict perspective by examining the distribution of power and authority in American society. In his influential work, The Power Elite (1956), Mills argued that post-World War II U.S. society was governed by a coalition of elites from the military, industrial, and political sectors. This “power elite” shaped domestic and foreign policy to serve its interests, often to the detriment of the general public. Mills emphasized that this elite group used its considerable influence and resources to maintain control, advancing an ideology that justified its power and status. His work underscored that power imbalances and elite dominance were central to understanding societal organization and the perpetuation of inequality.

While both Marxian and neo-conflict perspectives within the conflict theory framework acknowledge inherent societal conflicts, they differ in their emphasis: the Marxian approach highlights economic class struggles, whereas the neo-conflict approach focuses on power dynamics and authority as sources of tension.

Wright Mills’ contribution emphasizes the role of elite groups in perpetuating inequality through ideological and structural control, further deepening the conflict perspective’s analysis of power and dominance in society.

Micro Interpretive (Social Action Approach)

The social action approach—also known as the phenomenological, interpretive, anti-positivist, or micro-sociological approach—rejects many of the core assumptions of positivism. Social action theorists argue that the subject matter of the social sciences is fundamentally different from that of the natural sciences. Because natural sciences study physical matter, their methods and assumptions cannot be directly applied to the study of human beings and their behavior.

Max Weber was one of the earliest sociologists to articulate this viewpoint in detail. He maintained that sociological explanations must begin with the observation and interpretation of the subjective states of mind of individuals, since human actions are driven by meanings, intentions, and motivations.

Interactionism follows a similar path, placing special emphasis on the processes of social interaction. While positivists focus on facts and cause-and-effect relationships, interactionists prioritize insight, understanding, and the meanings individuals attach to their actions. Since we cannot directly access people’s thoughts, these meanings must be uncovered through interpretation and intuition.

For this reason, sociology, according to this perspective, is primarily concerned with interpreting social action, which is why social action approaches are often collectively referred to as interpretive sociology.

Symbolic Interactionism

The roots of symbolic interactionism can be traced back to Max Weber, who argued that individuals act based on how they interpret the meaning of their social world. However, it was the American philosopher George Herbert Mead who formally introduced symbolic interactionism into sociology.

Symbolic interactionism holds that people assign meanings to one another’s words and actions. Our responses are shaped not by the actions themselves but by our subjective interpretations of them. Social interaction, therefore, is guided by the meanings individuals attach to symbols—most commonly spoken language.

This perspective rests on two key ideas. First, individuals do not react directly to physical objects or events; instead, they react to the meanings they attribute to them. Second, because people continually interpret and reinterpret the world around them—including others’ actions, their own behavior, and even their previous interpretations—human behavior is fluid and constantly evolving.

The way we act is continuously shaped by how we interpret others’ behavior and how they, in turn, respond to us. Human behavior does not possess an intrinsic reality; it becomes real only after individuals construct meaning around it. Thus, the process of interpretation is central—people act based on what they believe an action means.

Symbolic interactionism has been criticized for overlooking broader social structures and forces. Critics argue that it fails to account for the influence of larger institutions, cultures, social groups, and global processes on individual interactions, focusing too narrowly on the micro level.

Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism

Limited Consideration of Social and Historical Context (Marxist Critique)
- Interactionists are criticized for ignoring the broader historical and social backgrounds of interactions.
- By focusing only on immediate, face-to-face interactions, they overlook the larger societal forces that shape these encounters.
- Critics argue that social interactions are influenced by long-standing societal patterns and class relations, which interactionism underemphasizes.
Neglect of Social Structure and Norms
- Symbolic interactionism emphasizes individual agency and flexibility in human behavior.
- Critics contend that this perspective underestimates how social structures and norms guide and restrict individual actions.
- While interactionists recognize norms, they rarely examine how these norms originate or become institutionalized.
- William Skidmore argues that ignoring social structure leads to a failure to explain why people act consistently within societal expectations.
Failure to Address the Origins of Meaning
- Interactionists focus on meanings that emerge within interactions but often neglect to explore where these meanings originally come from.
- Critics argue that meanings are shaped by larger social structures and power relations, not just immediate interactions.
- From a Marxist view, meanings are influenced by class relations and economic forces.
- Therefore, interactionism is seen as incomplete for failing to explain how society creates and sustains shared meanings.
American Cultural Bias
- Since symbolic interactionism developed in the United States, critics such as Leon Shaskolsky argue that it reflects American ideals like individualism, personal freedom, and agency.
- This cultural bias leads the theory to emphasize personal interpretation while downplaying structural constraints.
- As a result, the perspective may be less applicable in societies where individualism is not a dominant cultural value.
Overall Limitation of Interactionism
- While symbolic interactionism offers deep insight into micro-level interactions, critics argue that it neglects the influence of historical, social, and economic structures.
- By focusing too much on individual meaning-making, it risks overemphasizing personal freedom.
- This limited scope makes interactionism less effective in explaining the origins of shared meanings and the structural forces that shape human behaviour.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology in sociology argues that human behaviour cannot be studied using the methods of natural sciences because people possess consciousness, intentions, and subjective meanings. Unlike objects that react automatically to external stimuli, humans interpret their experiences and act based on the meanings they assign to situations. Max Weber laid the foundation for this approach by insisting that sociologists must understand the subjective intentions of individuals to explain their actions. Phenomenology therefore emphasizes interpretation over observation, viewing social reality as something individuals actively construct through interactions. This perspective challenges positivism by portraying humans as creators of meaning rather than passive responders to social forces.

Key Ideas of Phenomenology

Human action is guided by subjective meanings, not just external stimuli.
Individuals possess consciousness—thoughts, intentions, feelings—that shape behaviour.
Sociologists must interpret actors’ internal meanings to understand social action.
Max Weber emphasized that explanation should begin with subjective intentions (“states of mind”).
Social reality is constructed and constantly redefined through interaction.
Phenomenology rejects positivist methods, arguing that natural science approaches cannot fully explain human behaviour.
Focuses on interpretive sociology, prioritizing meaning and understanding over cause–effect.

Strengths and Limitations of Phenomenology

Strengths

Provides deep, nuanced understanding of how individuals interpret their social world.
Highlights human agency, showing people as active creators of meaning.
Captures the complexity of subjective experience that positivism often misses.
Explains the fluid and changing nature of social behaviour.
Balances deterministic theories by emphasizing freedom and interpretation.

Limitations

Difficult to generalize findings due to its focus on individual meanings.
Often ignores broader social structures, such as class, power, and institutions.
Overemphasis on subjectivity makes objective measurement challenging.
Can overlook structural constraints that limit individual choices.
Less compatible with quantitative methods, restricting large-scale empirical study.

Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology is the study of the everyday methods people use to make sense of and organize their social world. Drawing heavily from the phenomenological ideas of Alfred Schutz, it focuses on how individuals actively construct meaning in routine interactions. Ethnomethodologists argue that social order is not an objective, fixed reality; instead, it appears orderly because people interpret and understand their experiences in specific ways. Rather than treating social phenomena as independent facts, ethnomethodology studies the reasoning, assumptions, and interpretive practices through which people produce a sense of order in daily life.

Key Ideas of Ethnomethodology

Social order is a perception — society appears orderly because people interpret it that way, not because it inherently possesses order.
Focus on everyday methods — studies how people use routine techniques, reasoning, and interpretation to construct social reality.
Critique of mainstream sociology — rejects the idea that social phenomena (crime, suicide, etc.) exist as objective facts; instead, they are shaped by people’s interpretations.
Similarity to ordinary thinking — argues that sociologists use the same interpretive methods as everyday people; both rely on experiences and observations to make sense of the world.
Reality as socially constructed — emphasizes that meanings and order emerge through interaction, not through external structures.

Criticisms of Ethnomethodology

Ignores goals and power — criticized for overlooking motives, goals, and power dynamics that shape interactions (Gouldner’s critique).
Dismisses unseen influences — tends to ignore external realities (like threats or structural forces) that affect behaviour even when individuals are not consciously aware of them (Goldthorpe’s argument).
Endless reinterpretation — its focus on analysing “accounts of accounts” can lead to infinite reinterpretation, making it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions (Giddens’ criticism).
Neglect of social structure — underplays the importance of institutions, norms, and broader social patterns in shaping everyday life.
Lacks practical explanations — sometimes fails to explain why people behave as they do, focusing instead on how they describe or interpret actions.

Important Keywords

Research methodology, Positivism, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Order and Stability, Value consensus, Social Conflict, Neo-conflict Approach, Social action, Power Elite, Symbolic Interactionism, Phenomenology, American Cultural Bias, Everyday Methods, Social Order, Subjective Meanings and Endless Accounting.

Welcome to Primus Civil Services Academy