The Main Types Of Sociology (and Their Characteristics)
Sociology is a young science As quickly as one reads who are the authors considered “classical”, one realizes that the oldest ones are from the beginning of the 19th century.
Among them, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim and Max Weber, among others, may stand out. In this article, I very briefly review some classifications of types of sociology that can be regularly found in this area. However, due to the young age of the discipline, although there is certain consensus, there are still disagreements in a wide range of areas, some even vital for the discipline.
I am talking about questions such as whether statistical techniques can help us satisfactorily explain social phenomena or not; whether it is “sensible” to use behavioral theories instead of “structural” theories; or whether sociology can or will be considered a science like the others, or on the contrary it is destined to always be relegated to the background, for whatever reasons.
If we generalize to the areas to which these questions belong, we will see that their answer will influence a good part of how we do research later: what techniques and type of models should we use to properly explain? Are individuals important when constituting and explaining social phenomena, as well as their different states? Due to the complexity of these phenomena, should we relegate ourselves to not having the same explanatory capacity as other sciences? Physics or biology hardly poses, at this point, questions of this type, at least as I have formulated them. These constant discussions mean that the classifications I use here may change, or, in fact, are already changing
I am going to use three different useful criteria to give a general “image” of the discipline from different angles: sociology according to the methodology it uses; depending on the social phenomenon to which it refers; and according to the theoretical conception that exists of “social phenomenon”.
Due to space reasons, I do not focus on explaining each specific typology in depth. To this end, at the end of the article references are proposed that may allow those who are interested to know a little more.
1. Types of sociology by their methodology
When investigating and falsifying hypotheses, sociology has generally relied on techniques that can be classified as qualitative and quantitative.
1.1. Of qualitative techniques
Qualitative techniques They are designed to study anything that requires data that is very difficult to quantify and that at least they are epistemologically subjective. We are talking about ideas, perceptions, reasons, and signs that have meanings. Many times qualitative techniques are used to explore topics for which there is little data, to better address future research with quantitative techniques.
In fact, these types of techniques are usually linked to research that is interested in study the phenomenology of subjects with respect to a social fact For example, we can ask how identity is lived and understood in a particular social group. In-depth interviewing, focus groups, and ethnography all represent techniques that have typically been linked to this field. Another qualitative technique widely used in history is, for example, historical narrative.
In general, The sample of individuals of these techniques is usually much smaller than that of quantitative techniques, since they follow different logics. For example, in the case of qualitative interviews, one of the key objectives is to reach discourse saturation, a point at which new interviews do not provide more relevant data than those already provided so far. In a statistical technique, on the other hand, the result of not reaching a certain necessary sampling number means, almost, the unusability of any statistical technique.
1.2. Of quantitative techniques
Within quantitative techniques we can distinguish between two large fields: that of statistics and that of artificial simulation.
The first is the classic in sociology. Along with qualitative techniques, Statistics has been and continues to be one of the most used It makes sense: in sociology, collective phenomena are studied, that is, phenomena that cannot themselves be reduced to a single individual. Statistics provides a series of techniques that allow us to describe variables that belong to the group of individuals, while also allowing us to study associations between various variables, and apply certain techniques in order to predict.
Thanks to the increasingly widespread scope of Big Data and the Machine Learning, statistical techniques have had a certain type of revitalization. This area in particular is undergoing a “revolution”, both inside and outside the academy, from which the social sciences hope to be able to deal with enormous amounts of data that will allow for a better description of social phenomena.
The other major area, that of artificial simulation, is relatively new and less known. The approach and applicability of these techniques is different depending on which one is considered. For example, System Dynamics allows us to study the relationships between communities by applying differential equation models that model aggregate behavior together with other aggregates. Another technique, Multi-Agent Simulation Models, allows programming artificial individuals that, by following rules, generate the social phenomenon that is intended to be studied based on modeling that takes into account the individuals, their properties and essential rules. , and the environment, without any need to introduce differential equations.
That’s why It is considered that this type of simulation techniques, despite being quite different, allow you to better study Complex Systems (such as social phenomena) (Wilensky, U.: 2015). Another simulation technique widely used in demography, for example, is Microsimulation.
It is important to add to this point that both the Big Data revolution and the application of simulation techniques, as they serve to study social systems, are now known as “Computational Social Science” (for example, Watts, D.: 2013).
2. Types of sociology by field of study
By field of study, the types of sociology can be classified, above all, by the following topics:
To these three major themes, very general in themselves, others are added, such as studies of social mobility and social classes (Wright, E.: 1979); fiscal behavior studies (Noguera, J. et al.: 2014); studies of social segregation (Schelling, T.: 1971); family studies (Flaqué, Ll.: 2010); studies of public policies and the Welfare State (Andersen, G.-E.: 1990); social influence studies (Watts, D.: 2009); organizational studies (Hedström, P. & Wennberg, K.: 2016); social network studies (Snijders, T. et al.: 2007); etc
Although some areas of study are well defined, the boundaries of many others clearly touch other areas. For example, one could apply a view from the sociology of organizations to a typical sociology of education study. The same applies, for example, when applying the study of social networks to areas such as the sociology of work.
It should be noted, finally, that, although sociology has been quite isolated throughout the 20th century, now the borders that separate it from other social sciences, from economics to anthropology and always bordering on psychology, are increasingly blurred, with interdisciplinary collaboration increasingly being the norm rather than the exception.
3. Types of sociology by theoretical scope of the concept “social phenomenon”
One of the fields where sociologists most strongly disagree with each other is that which defines and interprets what social phenomena are and what they cause, as well as what their possible effects are on societies.
Simplified, today we could find three positions that serve to delimit types of sociology or ways of understanding sociology: structuralism, constructionism and analytical sociology
3.1. Structuralism
Although structuralism has had different meanings depending on the time and the person who used it, in sociology generally This term is understood in the sense of “structures” of society that exist on their own beyond the individual and that causally affect him directly, normally without him being aware of their effect.
This vision corresponds with the proposal of Émile Durkheim, one of the classics of the discipline, and which can be summarized as “the whole is more than the sum of its parts”, a principle that can also be found in Gestalt psychology. This vision, therefore, considers that social phenomena exist, in some way, beyond the individuals themselves, and their scope of action on them is absolute and direct. For this reason, this perspective has been called “holistic.” This vision of social phenomena, very summarized here, has been the most popular in the last century, and currently continues to be the most widespread within the discipline.
3.2. Constructionism
The constructionist vision is also one of the most widespread in the discipline. Although constructionist views may exist in almost all areas of sociology, it is also characterized by being quite “independent”.
The constructionist vision is largely influenced by the discoveries made by cultural anthropology. These showed that, Although certain conceptions may prevail in one society, they do not have to do so in the same way in other societies For example, European society may have a certain conception of what art is, what is good or bad, what the role of the State is, and etc., and Indian society may have a completely different one. Which is the true one, then? Both and neither.
In this sense, constructionism would say that many of the things that seem as solid as nature actually depend on human acceptance. The most extreme position of this current, which we could call constructivism (Searle, J.: 1995), would say that everything is a social construction as long as it is understood and conceptualized by the word (which is, of course, something created by and for human beings). In that sense, things like science, or the ideas of truthfulness and certainty, would also be social constructions, which would imply that they depend solely and exclusively on human beings.
3.3. Analytical sociology
The analytical position, for its part, in addition to being the most recent, exists as a response to both structuralism and constructivism It is, by far, the least adopted position within the discipline.
Very briefly, this position aims to conceptualize social phenomena as complex systems formed by individuals, whose actions in interaction with other individuals form the causes of the emergence of social phenomena.
In fact, this perspective places special emphasis on uncovering the causal mechanisms that generate social phenomena. That is, the concrete actions of individuals that, at a macro level, generate the phenomenon we wish to explain. It is common to read that this position has the interest of offering black-box free explanations, or explanations that detail the exact processes from which the social phenomena we see occur.
Furthermore, analytical sociology, a term for which it has gained fame in recent decades (Hedström, P.: 2005; Hedström, P. & Bearman, P.: 2010; Manzo, G.: 2014, among others), clearly bets through the use of artificial simulation techniques from which social phenomena can be better studied, understood (again) as complex systems.
As a last point, I would like to say that analytical sociology wants to advance sociology by making it as similar to the rest of the sciences as possible with regard to certain aspects of the research process (such as promoting the use of models and clearly betting on mathematical-formal expression or, failing that, the computational one).
The relative nature of the boundaries between types of sociology
A note is necessary here: it should be noted that, although the differences between the different areas are quite clear and evident, and although generally the individuals within each group share certain basic premises, these are not totally homogeneous within themselves
For example, in structuralist positions there are clearly people in favor of different conceptions of constructionism. In the analytical position, for its part, not everyone shares certain causal relationships between the different levels (the social phenomenon and the individual).
To go further
A reference author who has tried to classify the social sciences based on different criteria is Andrew Abbot, in Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. The book is written in a clear, pedagogical style, and allows you to get an idea not only of sociology and its different types, but also of the other social sciences. Very useful to get into the topic.
Concluding
The conclusion we can reach is that we can find types of sociology depending on (1) the method they use; (2) depending on the field of study they focus on; (3) and according to the theoretical position that frames them in a position within the discipline. We could say that points (1) and (2) are consistent with other sciences. Point (3), however, seems to be the result of the early age of the discipline. We are talking about that, depending on whether one is in one position or another, one could affirm things that from another point of view are impossible or contrary, a fact that gives the impression that neither of them is right and that, ultimately, the little or no sense of “progress” within the discipline.
However, Thanks to the advancement of certain methodologies, sociology, along with other social sciences, are increasingly capable of better studying social phenomena as well as proposing better hypotheses that can be better contrasted and that may have greater validity.
