Breaking down the question

The command word is does — an evaluative question inviting a reasoned yes or no. Two elements must be answered. First, whether adopting scientific method is sufficient to make sociology a science. Second — and this is compulsory, not optional — the argument must be illustrated through Durkheim's method specifically.

The pivot is the distinction between science defined by subject matter and science defined by method. If science is a way of proceeding rather than a class of objects, then a discipline that follows that procedure earns scientific status regardless of what it studies.

Threads to develop:

  • What the scientific method contributes — empiricism, objectivity, generalisation.
  • Durkheim's programme as the classic demonstration.
  • The qualification that method alone leaves difficulties unresolved.

How to approach it

Open by defining science through method rather than content. Then argue the affirmative case through Durkheim, who converted the positivist aspiration into a working procedure. Show how his rules and his study of suicide together illustrate empirical, objective, generalising social science. Draw on the note on sociology as a science and the account of Emile Durkheim.

Close with a qualified judgement — method makes sociology scientific in rigour, though the meaningful character of social life keeps it a distinctive science.

Model answer

Science is best understood not by what it studies but by how it studies — through systematic observation, evidence, hypothesis-testing and cautious generalisation. On this view, the scientific method can indeed confer scientific status on sociology, and no one demonstrated this more forcefully than Emile Durkheim.

Building on Comte's positivism, Durkheim insisted in The Rules of Sociological Method that sociology treat social facts as things — realities external to the individual, general across a society, and constraining conduct. Such facts are to be studied objectively, with the sociologist setting aside preconceptions and defining phenomena by observable characteristics rather than moral judgement. This established the core scientific requirements of empiricism and objectivity.

His study of Suicide illustrates the method in action. Rather than explaining suicide by individual psychology, Durkheim used official statistics to show that suicide rates remained stable and varied systematically between groups — higher among Protestants than Catholics, the unmarried than the married. From these correlations he derived a general explanation: suicide varies inversely with social integration and regulation. Here is the full scientific procedure — a phenomenon treated as a social fact, measured empirically, explained through comparison, and generalised into a law-like statement.

Yet method alone does not settle every difficulty. Human action carries subjective meaning, controlled experiment is rarely possible, and complete value neutrality is hard to secure. Interpretive sociologists such as Weber argued that understanding meaning must supplement causal explanation.

The honest conclusion is a qualified yes. The scientific method — as Durkheim's work proves — makes sociology genuinely scientific in rigour and procedure, even if its subject matter makes it a human science rather than a replica of physics.

Examiner's perspective

For a ten-marker the examiner wants both halves delivered: a clear position on method and a concrete illustration from Durkheim. Scripts that discuss the science debate abstractly, without deploying The Rules and Suicide, forfeit the marks the question specifically directs towards Durkheim.

The strongest answers name the scientific hallmarks — social facts as things, objectivity, statistical correlation, generalisation — and show Suicide enacting each. A brief qualification acknowledging the interpretive critique lifts the answer above a one-sided assertion. Precision with terms such as positivism and social facts signals conceptual command and secures the top band.