Breaking down the question
Two commands structure the answer. Describe the basic postulates of scientific method asks for the defining assumptions and procedures that make an enquiry scientific. How far are these followed in sociological research is evaluative — it wants an honest audit of the extent to which sociology can and does meet these standards, weighing the positivist claim to full scientific status against the interpretive objection.
Scientific method denotes the systematic, empirical, self-correcting procedure by which the natural sciences build reliable knowledge. Sociological research is the study of social life; the question probes whether the subject matter — meaningful human action — permits the same method as the study of nature.
A strong answer first lists the postulates cleanly, then tests each against the realities of social research, concluding that sociology follows the method substantially but imperfectly, with genuine constraints imposed by its subject.
How to approach it
- Introduce the ambition, from Comte onward, to build a science of society.
- State the postulates one by one — empiricism, objectivity, verifiability, reliability, causality, generalisation, ethical neutrality.
- Assess how far each is achievable in sociology, citing Durkheim on the positivist side.
- Present the interpretive counter-case — Weber, Dilthey — on meaning, verstehen and the limits of prediction.
- Conclude with a measured verdict on sociology's scientific standing.
The notes on sociology as a science develop the debate.
Model answer
The aspiration to study society scientifically is as old as the discipline itself. Auguste Comte, who coined the term sociology, envisaged a positive science modelled on the natural sciences, and Emile Durkheim gave that ambition a concrete methodology. The scientific method rests on a set of basic postulates.
The first is empiricism — knowledge must be grounded in observable, sensory evidence rather than speculation or authority. The second is objectivity — the enquiry must be free of the investigator's personal bias, so that the facts, not the researcher's wishes, determine the conclusions. The third is verifiability and its companion reliability — findings must be capable of being checked, and repeated observation under the same conditions should yield the same result. A fourth postulate is the search for causality — the identification of regular relations between variables, cause and effect. A fifth is generalisation — the framing of general laws or propositions that hold beyond the single case, typically through hypothesis formulation and testing. Underlying these is a commitment to systematic procedure and to ethical neutrality, the suspension of value judgements while establishing what is the case.
How far does sociological research follow these postulates? On the positivist side, the answer is substantially. Durkheim insisted in The Rules of Sociological Method that social facts be treated as things, studied objectively and externally. His study of suicide showed that sociology can be empirical (drawing on official statistics), can establish causal relations (linking suicide rates to social integration and regulation), can generalise (deriving law-like propositions across societies), and can verify claims against systematically compared data. Sociology routinely employs the apparatus of science — hypotheses, variables, sampling, quantitative measurement, comparison and statistical inference — and much of it meets scientific standards well.
Yet several postulates are followed only imperfectly, because the subject matter differs from that of the natural sciences. Objectivity and value neutrality are harder to secure: the sociologist is part of the society studied, and the choice of problem, concepts and interpretation can be coloured by values. Max Weber conceded this while insisting that value neutrality remain a disciplining ideal during analysis even though values legitimately guide the selection of topics. Controlled experiment, central to the natural sciences, is rarely possible with whole societies, weakening the isolation of causes. Prediction is limited, because human beings are reflexive and can act contrary to expectation. Above all, the interpretive tradition of Wilhelm Dilthey and Weber argues that social action is meaningful in a way natural events are not: to explain it requires verstehen, the interpretive understanding of subjective meaning, which supplements rather than mimics the methods of physics. Measurement of subjective states is inherently more approximate than measurement of physical quantities.
Where does this leave the verdict? Sociology follows the postulates of scientific method to a considerable degree — it is empirical, systematic, evidence-based, and it strives for objectivity, verifiability and generalisation. But it follows them with qualifications dictated by its subject: perfect objectivity, controlled experiment and confident prediction are harder to attain, and the meaningful character of social action demands interpretive as well as causal explanation. Sociology is best regarded as a science of a distinctive kind — one that adopts the scientific ethos of disciplined, checkable enquiry while adapting its techniques to the peculiarities of studying self-aware human beings.
Examiner's perspective
This is a classic sociology as science question, and the examiner rewards a two-sided treatment. Listing the postulates is the easy half; the marks lie in the assessment of how far each is met, with the positivist and interpretive positions both represented.
Strong scripts anchor the affirmative case in Durkheim and the qualifying case in Weber and Dilthey, and they distinguish the postulates that sociology meets well (empiricism, systematic procedure, generalisation) from those it meets imperfectly (controlled experiment, prediction, complete value neutrality). A precise, balanced conclusion — a science of a special kind — outperforms both the naive claim that sociology is fully scientific and the dismissive claim that it is not scientific at all.