Science, values and the sociology of crime | AQA A-Level Sociology
Updated: Aug 25
For Specification 7192
AQA A-Level Sociology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 80 minutes
Can sociologists study crime as objectively as natural scientists study the physical world, or do meanings and values inevitably shape sociological knowledge? This Science, values and the sociology of crime A-Level Sociology revision page examines the scientific status of Sociology, subjectivity, objectivity and value freedom, then applies these debates directly to evidence about crime and deviance. AQA requires students to examine both the nature of science and debates about values, making this an important synoptic link between positivism and social facts [Positivism and social facts], research methods and sociological theory.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain different arguments about the nature of science and the scientific status of Sociology.
Apply debates about science to sociological research into crime and deviance.
Distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity in sociological research.
Explain the meaning of value freedom and value-laden Sociology.
Analyse how values may affect the production of sociological knowledge about crime.
Evaluate the extent to which sociological research into crime can be objective.
Revision Notes 📚
Science, values and the sociology of crime A-Level Sociology revision overview
AQA requires students studying Theory and Methods to examine:
the nature of science and the extent to which Sociology can be regarded as scientific
the relationship between theory and methods
debates about subjectivity, objectivity and value freedom.
AQA also states that the role of values is an integral element running through A-Level Sociology. Within Paper 3, these ideas can be connected to evidence and explanations of crime and deviance.This creates three closely related questions:
Can Sociology use scientific methods to discover reliable explanations of crime?
Can sociologists investigate crime objectively?
Can, or should, sociologists keep their values out of their research?
These questions overlap, but they are not identical.
What does it mean to say Sociology is scientific?
AQA's 2024 Paper 3 presented the positivist argument that Sociology can be regarded as scientific because sociologists can use principles and procedures associated with the natural sciences, investigate cause-and-effect relationships and attempt to make predictions about human behaviour. The same item presented a criticism that people possess consciousness and free will, and noted that sociologists disagree about how science itself should be defined.
The debate therefore concerns both:
whether Sociology can follow scientific procedures
what characteristics something must have to count as science.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme recognises concepts including empiricism, cause and effect, verification, falsification, induction, deduction, the hypothetico-deductive method, social facts, objectivity, subjectivity and value freedom as potentially relevant to this debate.
Positivism and the scientific study of crime
Positivism argues that society can be studied systematically and that sociologists should seek patterns and relationships in observable evidence.
This links directly to positivism and social facts [Positivism and social facts].
Applied to crime, a positivist might investigate:
patterns in recorded offending
differences between social groups
changes in crime over time
relationships between measurable social factors and crime
patterns of victimisation.
The positivist aim is to move beyond individual cases and identify broader regularities.
Empiricism
Empiricism involves basing knowledge on observable evidence.
For crime research, this means sociological explanations should be examined against evidence rather than accepted simply because they sound convincing.
Evidence might include:
official statistics
questionnaires
experiments
other systematically collected data.
The researcher can then compare claims about crime with the evidence available.
Cause and effect
Scientific explanations often attempt to identify whether changes in one factor are connected with changes in another.
A positivist sociologist studying crime might therefore investigate whether measurable social conditions are associated with differences in offending.
However, identifying an association does not automatically prove that one variable directly causes another. Social behaviour may be affected by several interacting influences.
Social facts and crime
The idea of social facts is particularly important to positivism.
Social facts are features or patterns of society that exist beyond one individual and exert influence over behaviour.
Crime can therefore be studied at the level of social patterns rather than simply as a collection of unrelated personal decisions.
A researcher might look for regular differences in crime by:
social class
gender
ethnicity
geographical area
time period.
This allows sociologists to investigate the social distribution of crime and deviance, which AQA explicitly requires students to study.
Quantitative research and scientific Sociology
Positivists commonly favour quantitative methods because numerical data can make:
comparisons easier
trends more visible
procedures more standardised
patterns easier to identify.
Official statistics can therefore appear particularly useful for a scientific study of crime.
They may allow a researcher to compare:
different groups
different locations
different periods.
The relationship between theoretical assumptions and method choice is developed further in the relationship between theory and methods [The relationship between theory and methods].
Reliability and replication
One reason structured methods may appear scientific is reliability.
Reliable research uses procedures that are sufficiently consistent for another researcher to repeat or check the investigation.
Standardisation may reduce variation caused by individual researchers.
For example, if every respondent receives the same questions in the same order, differences in responses are less likely to result simply from different interviewing procedures.
This can strengthen claims that the evidence was produced systematically.
Objectivity as a scientific goal
Objectivity refers to attempting to produce sociological knowledge that is not distorted by the personal opinions, preferences or values of the researcher.
A researcher attempting to be objective should try to distinguish:
what the evidence shows
what they personally believe should be true.
Applied to crime, a sociologist should not decide that one social group is "more criminal" simply because they personally hold negative views about that group.
Instead, claims should be supported by evidence and the quality of that evidence should itself be evaluated.
This wider issue is examined directly in subjectivity and objectivity [Subjectivity and objectivity].
Can official crime statistics provide objective evidence?
At first sight, official statistics may seem highly objective because they consist of numerical data rather than a researcher's personal account.
However, sociologists still need to ask how those statistics were produced.
AQA crime assessment material repeatedly recognises that patterns in official statistics may be influenced by processes such as:
whether behaviour is detected
whether it is reported
whether it is recorded
how laws are enforced
which groups are subjected to criminal justice processes.
For example, AQA's 2020 assessment contrasted explanations based on actual social-class differences in offending with explanations involving selective law creation and enforcement, while also noting that crimes of powerful groups may be less likely to appear in official statistics.
This produces an important distinction:
Objective-looking numbers are not automatically an objective measurement of all crime.
A researcher must still evaluate the processes through which the figures were produced.
The interpretivist challenge to scientific Sociology
Interpretivists question whether methods modelled closely on the natural sciences are always suitable for studying human beings.
AQA's 2024 science question highlighted the argument that people have consciousness and free will.
Human beings:
interpret situations
attach meanings to behaviour
react to other people
make choices.
This means the sociologist may need to understand behaviour rather than simply measure it.
This connects closely with interpretivism and sociological methods [Interpretivism and sociological methods].
Verstehen and crime
AQA's 2024 mark scheme identifies verstehen as relevant to debates about Sociology and science.
Verstehen refers to understanding social action from the point of view of the person whose behaviour is being studied.
Applied to crime, an interpretivist may argue that counting incidents is not enough.
The sociologist may also need to understand:
what an action meant to the person involved
how the individual interpreted the situation
how others responded
how behaviour came to be understood as criminal or deviant.
Qualitative methods may therefore produce knowledge that a purely quantitative approach cannot.
Validity and scientific measurement
Interpretivists are particularly concerned with validity, meaning whether research provides an accurate understanding of the social reality being investigated.
A method may be:
highly standardised
repeatable
quantitatively precise
while still failing to capture what participants actually mean.
AQA's 2023 mark scheme recognises that interpretivists may prefer qualitative methods because these allow greater insight into meanings and may produce more valid evidence.
This creates a central methodological debate:
Scientific priority | Possible strength | Possible problem |
Standardisation | Greater reliability | May restrict participants' answers |
Quantification | Makes patterns easier to compare | May reduce complex meanings to categories |
Objectivity | Attempts to minimise researcher influence | Complete detachment may be difficult |
Validity | Can produce a deeper understanding | Flexible methods may be harder to replicate |
Falsification
AQA identifies falsification as relevant to the scientific-status debate and its 2024 examiner report notes that successful students developed examples such as falsification. The mark scheme also identifies Popper as a relevant source.Falsification means that a scientific claim should be open to being shown wrong by evidence.
The significance for Sociology is that a theory should not be protected from all possible criticism.
Applied to crime:
a sociologist makes a clear claim about crime
the claim generates expectations that can be compared with evidence
researchers examine whether the available evidence is consistent with those expectations
evidence that contradicts the claim must be taken seriously.
This encourages sociologists to treat theories as open to testing and criticism rather than as unquestionable truths.
Verification
AQA also identifies verification as relevant to the debate about science.
Verification involves looking for evidence that supports a claim.
For example, a sociologist proposing a relationship between social conditions and crime might look for evidence showing the predicted pattern.
However, one problem with relying only on supporting evidence is that a researcher may overlook cases that challenge the explanation.
This is why the distinction between attempting to verify and attempting to falsify a claim matters in debates over scientific procedure.
Induction and deduction
AQA's 2024 mark scheme identifies both induction and deduction as relevant concepts.
Induction
Induction involves moving from observations towards a more general explanation.
In crime research:
the sociologist observes or collects evidence about crime
patterns are identified
a broader explanation is developed from those patterns.
Deduction
Deduction begins with an explanation or theoretical claim and derives expectations that can be examined using evidence.
In crime research:
begin with a theory
develop a prediction about crime
collect relevant evidence
compare the evidence with the prediction.
Both approaches show that the relationship between theory and evidence is central to claims that Sociology can be scientific.
The hypothetico-deductive method
AQA identifies the hypothetico-deductive method as relevant to scientific Sociology.
This involves developing a testable proposition from a theory and examining it against evidence.
Applied to crime:
Theory → testable expectation → evidence → assessment of the explanation
The important examination point is not simply to name the process. Explain why it matters.
It offers Sociology a systematic way of connecting theoretical explanations with empirical evidence.
Kuhn and paradigms
AQA's 2024 mark scheme identifies paradigm shift as relevant and names Kuhn among appropriate sources. The examiner report notes that some successful students used Kuhn when evaluating Sociology's scientific status.A paradigm is a broad framework shaping the assumptions, questions and accepted ways of working within an area of knowledge.
A paradigm shift occurs when one dominant framework is replaced by another.
This creates an important question for Sociology.
Sociologists often disagree substantially over explanations of crime.
For example, the course includes:
functionalist
Marxist
feminist
social action
realist
post-modern
interpretations.
Such disagreement may be used to question whether Sociology has the same kind of shared framework associated with some accounts of science.
However, disagreement alone does not prove that systematic sociological investigation is impossible. It instead raises a debate about how science should be defined.
There is more than one definition of science
This is an important point from AQA's 2024 examination.
The item explicitly stated that there is disagreement about how science should be defined.
Therefore, avoid an argument that says:
"Sociology is scientific because it uses numbers."
That is much too narrow.
The scientific-status debate may involve questions about:
empirical evidence
cause and effect
prediction
objectivity
falsification
scientific procedures
paradigms
how theories are tested.
A strong evaluation considers different definitions rather than assuming there is one uncontested checklist for science.
Determinism and free will
AQA identifies determinism and free will within the science debate.
Determinism is the view that behaviour is shaped or caused by forces beyond immediate individual choice.
A scientific explanation seeking causal patterns may lean towards some form of determinism.
For example, structural sociologists might seek to explain crime through:
socialisation
inequality
social structure
social control.
However, social action approaches emphasise free will, meaning that individuals have some capacity to choose how they respond.
This complicates prediction.
Two people exposed to similar social circumstances may not necessarily behave in exactly the same way.
This provides an important criticism of attempts to discover fixed laws of criminal behaviour.
Open and closed systems
AQA's 2024 mark scheme identifies closed and open systems as relevant concepts in debates about science.
A highly controlled scientific situation can attempt to isolate particular variables.
Societies, however, contain many interacting social influences.
Crime may simultaneously be influenced by:
social structure
interaction
social control
opportunities
meanings
social inequalities.
This makes it difficult to isolate one influence completely.
The complexity of social life therefore presents a challenge to simple cause-and-effect explanations.
From science to objectivity
The debate about science leads directly to a second question:
Even if sociologists use systematic methods, can their research ever be completely objective?
This requires a distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.
What is subjectivity?
Subjectivity occurs when knowledge is shaped by individual viewpoints, meanings, interpretations or values.
Subjectivity can enter sociological research when:
researchers choose what to investigate
researchers decide what concepts mean
participants interpret questions
researchers interpret responses
theoretical perspectives influence conclusions.
Subjectivity is not necessarily the same as poor research.
Interpretivists deliberately investigate subjective meanings because understanding those meanings may be necessary for explaining social action.
The problem arises when the researcher's own assumptions are confused with the experiences or evidence being studied.
Objectivity and subjectivity compared
Objectivity | Subjectivity |
Attempts to minimise personal bias | Recognises that viewpoints and meanings influence knowledge |
Separates evidence from personal judgement | Gives attention to interpretation |
Often associated with positivist aims | Often associated with interpretivist approaches |
May favour standardisation | May favour flexible qualitative methods |
Seeks findings not dependent on one researcher's preferences | Recognises that research involves human interpretation |
The key debate is not whether Sociology contains any interpretation at all. It is whether sociologists can control or critically reflect upon that interpretation sufficiently to produce trustworthy knowledge.
Applying objectivity to research into crime
Crime is a particularly useful area for examining objectivity because sociologists must make decisions about:
which forms of crime to investigate
which evidence to use
which social groups to focus on
whether official categories accurately represent social reality
how patterns should be explained.
Consider recorded ethnic differences in crime.
One researcher might treat official figures as evidence of differences in offending.
Another might focus on:
stop and search
labelling
selective enforcement
criminalisation.
Both are examining the same broad issue, but their theoretical assumptions may direct attention towards different evidence and explanations.
This does not mean evidence is irrelevant. It means sociologists must evaluate how theoretical choices shape the interpretation of evidence.
Values in Sociology
Values are beliefs about what is desirable, important, right or wrong.
The specification requires students to understand the role of values throughout Sociology and specifically to examine debates about value freedom.
Crime is clearly an area where values may become important because research concerns behaviour that societies classify, condemn and control in different ways.
What is value freedom?
Value freedom refers to the principle that sociologists should attempt to prevent their personal values from determining their sociological findings.
A value-free sociologist would seek to distinguish between:
an empirical claim about crime
a personal moral judgement about crime.
For example:
Empirical claim: a particular pattern appears in the available evidence.
Value judgement: that pattern is morally good, bad, desirable or undesirable.
Sociological research aims to investigate and explain evidence. Whether researchers can completely separate this work from values is the subject of debate.
The wider issue is developed in value freedom [Value freedom].
Value-laden Sociology
AQA identifies value-laden Sociology as relevant both to scientific status and methodological choice.Value-laden research is research in which values influence the sociological process.
This may happen because values influence:
what sociologists decide is worth investigating
which questions they ask
the concepts and definitions they use
the methods they regard as appropriate
how they interpret evidence.
AQA's 2023 mark scheme even recognises the argument that qualitative methods can allow sociologists' values to inform their research and that sociologists may choose approaches reflecting a commitment to less powerful groups.
Values and the choice of research topic
The specification explicitly requires students to examine theoretical, practical and ethical considerations affecting the choice of topic.
Values may also influence this choice.
A sociologist may decide to investigate:
corporate crime
experiences of victims
policing
gender differences
state crime
working-class offending.
The decision to focus on one issue rather than another can reflect what the researcher considers socially significant.
This does not automatically make the eventual findings false.
However, it shows why complete value freedom from the very beginning of research is difficult to achieve.
Values and defining crime
Crime research also raises questions about definitions.
The behaviour examined by sociologists may depend upon:
legal definitions
official categories
sociological definitions of deviance
theoretical interpretations.
Conflict and social action theories may question whether existing classifications are simply neutral descriptions.
This links back to sociological theories and crime [Sociological theories and crime], where competing approaches interpret law, deviance and social control differently.
Values and method choice
Values and theoretical assumptions may influence which research method a sociologist prefers.
For example:
a researcher prioritising measurement and objectivity may favour structured quantitative methods
a researcher committed to understanding participants' experiences may favour qualitative methods.
AQA's 2021 Theory and Methods mark scheme identifies value freedom, objectivity, value-laden research and subjectivity alongside positivism, interpretivism and methodological choice.
This means method choice is not purely technical.
It may reflect assumptions about what counts as useful sociological knowledge.
Values and the conduct of research
Values can potentially affect how research is carried out.
A researcher studying crime may need to make decisions about:
relationships with participants
what questions to pursue
how sensitive information is handled
which interpretations are given greater weight.
This is one reason researchers need to be aware of their own assumptions.
Being aware that values may matter is not the same as abandoning attempts at objectivity.
Values and interpretation
Two sociologists can examine similar evidence and draw different explanations from it.
For example, a pattern in recorded crime could be interpreted through:
structural inequality
individual choice
social control
labelling
selective enforcement.
The evidence therefore does not interpret itself.
Theoretical ideas help sociologists make sense of it.
The challenge is to distinguish reasoned sociological interpretation from simply imposing a preferred conclusion regardless of evidence.
Can values ever be completely removed?
There are strong reasons to question complete value freedom.
Values may influence:
what is studied
how the issue is defined
which method is chosen
how evidence is interpreted
which conclusions are emphasised.
However, this does not necessarily mean that all sociological claims are equally subjective.
Researchers may still attempt to increase objectivity through:
systematic evidence
clear research procedures
explicit concepts
comparison with alternative explanations
critical evaluation of evidence
openness to findings that challenge expectations.
The debate is therefore better expressed as a matter of degree than a simple choice between perfectly objective and completely subjective research.
Science and values are related, but not identical
It is easy to merge these debates, so keep them separate in an exam.
The science debate asks:
Can Sociology produce knowledge using principles appropriately described as scientific?
The objectivity debate asks:
Can sociologists prevent personal interpretations from distorting their findings?
The value-freedom debate asks:
Can or should sociologists prevent moral and political values from influencing research?
A researcher could use a highly systematic quantitative method while still making value-based decisions about which topic to study.
Likewise, a qualitative sociologist might acknowledge subjectivity but still attempt to represent participants' views accurately.
Scientific research into crime: strengths
A scientific approach can strengthen crime research by encouraging:
systematic collection of evidence
explicit explanations
comparison between claims and evidence
reliability
attempts at objectivity
examination of patterns
testing of theoretical claims.
These features make sociological explanations open to scrutiny rather than merely matters of personal opinion.
Scientific research into crime: limitations
However, the study of crime involves human beings who:
have consciousness
interpret situations
exercise some choice
react to researchers and social institutions.
Crime data may also be influenced by:
reporting
recording
enforcement
definitions of offending.
This means crime cannot necessarily be investigated as though it were a simple physical phenomenon unaffected by meanings and social processes.
Can sociological research into crime be objective?
There are arguments on both sides.
Argument: objectivity is possible to a significant extent
Sociologists can:
use systematic procedures
make methods transparent
distinguish evidence from opinion
use standardisation
compare different data sources
test explanations against evidence
allow theories to be criticised.
The fact that values may influence topic choice does not mean the evidence itself must be deliberately distorted.
Argument: complete objectivity is difficult
Research is conducted by human beings and involves decisions about:
concepts
evidence
methods
theoretical assumptions
interpretation.
Crime itself also involves socially produced categories and official processes.
This makes complete detachment difficult.
Interpretivist argument
Some subjectivity may actually be necessary.
If crime involves meanings and interactions, a researcher may need to interpret participants' experiences to understand behaviour.
A completely detached method could therefore reduce validity.
A reasoned judgement
The strongest conclusion is usually not:
Sociology is objective.
or:
Sociology is completely subjective.
A more defensible judgement is:
Sociologists can strive for objectivity through systematic and transparent research, but complete value freedom may be difficult because researchers make theoretical and methodological choices throughout the research process.
The degree of objectivity may also depend on:
the research question
the method used
the source of data
how openly researchers examine their own assumptions.
Linking science, values and crime
The debate can be summarised as a chain:
Theory influences the research question → the question influences method → the method affects the type of evidence produced → evidence requires interpretation → interpretations may be influenced by values
This does not mean that evidence has no value.
Instead, it explains why sociologists evaluate both:
the findings
the process by which those findings were produced.
This critical approach is especially important when dealing with contested evidence about crime.
Preparing for the next step
Questions about values also connect Sociology to government and public decision-making.
Research into crime may influence debates about:
crime control
policing
prevention
punishment
other forms of social policy.
This relationship is developed in sociology, crime and social policy [Sociology, crime and social policy].
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Science | A systematic approach to producing and evaluating knowledge using evidence and clearly stated procedures or explanations. | Discuss whether sociological research can meet scientific criteria. |
Empiricism | The use of observable evidence as a basis for knowledge. | Explain why positivists value evidence about measurable crime patterns. |
Falsification | The principle that a scientific explanation must be open to being challenged or shown wrong by evidence. | Evaluate whether sociological explanations can be scientifically tested. |
Objectivity | Attempting to produce knowledge that is not distorted by the researcher's personal beliefs or values. | Evaluate whether evidence about crime can be produced impartially. |
Subjectivity | The influence of meanings, interpretations or personal viewpoints on knowledge. | Explain interpretivist criticisms of purely objective approaches. |
Value freedom | The principle that researchers should try to prevent their personal values from determining their sociological findings. | Evaluate whether sociologists can separate evidence from moral judgement. |
Value-laden | Describes research in which values influence aspects of the research process. | Explain how values may affect topic, method or interpretation. |
Social facts | Social patterns or forces existing beyond individuals that can influence behaviour. | Explain positivist attempts to investigate patterned differences in crime. |
Verstehen | Understanding social behaviour from the point of view of the people involved. | Explain why interpretivists may favour qualitative research into crime. |
Paradigm | A broad framework that influences accepted assumptions and approaches within an area of knowledge. | Use debates about paradigms when evaluating whether Sociology is scientific. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Develop scientific concepts rather than simply naming them. In 2024, successful students used approaches involving Popper, Kuhn and Durkheim and developed examples such as falsification and objectivity versus subjectivity.
Examiner hint: You can approach a science question in more than one valid way. The 2024 report found that students were successful both when using thinkers associated with debates about science and when organising answers around positivism, interpretivism and research methods, provided the ideas were developed and applied.
Examiner hint: Use the item as a starting point, then add your own sociological knowledge. Examiners reported that many students successfully developed the hooks in the 2024 science question rather than simply repeating them.
Examiner hint: Evaluation remains the skill to work hardest on. Although the 2024 science question was answered well overall, the report still identified evaluation as the weakest assessment skill. Explain why an argument strengthens or weakens the claim rather than placing two views next to each other.
Examiner hint: A 20-mark Theory and Methods answer needs knowledge, application and evaluation. In the 2024 paper, Question 6 allocated 8 marks to AO1, 6 to AO2 and 6 to AO3. This means a strong response needs accurate sociological knowledge, clear focus on the item and question, and sustained evaluation.
Examiner hint: Keep introductions brief. The 2024 report specifically notes that lengthy introductions are unnecessary under timed conditions. Establish the debate quickly and move into developed sociological argument.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying Sociology is scientific simply because it uses statistics
Why this is incorrect: The science debate is much broader. AQA recognises issues including empiricism, cause and effect, prediction, falsification, paradigms, objectivity and the nature of human behaviour.
How to improve: Identify the scientific criterion you are applying and explain why Sociology does or does not meet it.
Mistake: Assuming objectivity and value freedom mean exactly the same thing
Why this is incorrect: They overlap, but they ask different questions. Objectivity concerns whether findings are distorted by personal viewpoints. Value freedom specifically concerns the role of values.
How to improve: Define each term before applying it.
Mistake: Assuming numerical evidence must be objective
Why this is incorrect: Numerical crime data still depend on how behaviour is detected, reported, classified and recorded.
How to improve: Evaluate the process by which the statistics were produced, not just their numerical appearance.
Mistake: Treating subjectivity as automatically bad Sociology
Why this is incorrect: Interpretivists argue that understanding subjective meanings may be essential for explaining human behaviour.
How to improve: Distinguish between the researcher's unsupported personal bias and the legitimate sociological study of participants' meanings.
Mistake: Saying values only affect the conclusion
Why this is incorrect: Values may potentially influence the research process much earlier, including the choice of topic and method.
How to improve: Think through the whole research process from topic choice to interpretation.
Mistake: Writing a general research-methods essay
Why this is incorrect: A question about science or objectivity requires you to use methodological material to address the theoretical debate.
How to improve: After discussing a method, explicitly state what it shows about science, objectivity or value freedom.
Mistake: Listing Popper, Kuhn or positivism without developing the argument
Why this is incorrect: The 2024 examiner report praised students who developed these ideas with appropriate examples.
How to improve: Use a chain such as:
concept → explanation → crime application → evaluation of scientific/objective Sociology.
Mistake: Using an opposing perspective as evaluation without making the link
Why this is incorrect: Writing "However, interpretivists disagree" is only juxtaposition.
How to improve: Explain why consciousness, meanings or free will create a specific problem for the scientific claim you have just discussed.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following best describes value freedom?
A. Using only quantitative data
B. Avoiding all sociological theory
C. Attempting to keep personal values from determining sociological findings
D. Refusing to research controversial issues
[1 mark]
Question 2
Define the term objectivity.
[2 marks]
Question 3
Outline two reasons why positivists may argue that crime can be studied scientifically.
[4 marks]
Question 4
Explain two ways in which sociological research into crime may be affected by subjectivity.
[6 marks]
Question 5
A sociologist uses official statistics to compare recorded offending between different social groups. Another sociologist argues that official statistics are influenced by processes of reporting, recording and enforcement.
Explain why this example creates a debate about objectivity in crime research.
[6 marks]
Question 6
Outline and explain two reasons why sociologists studying crime may find it difficult to remain value free.
[10 marks]
Question 7
Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.
Item A
Some sociologists argue that systematic evidence, clearly stated methods and the testing of explanations allow sociological knowledge to become more objective. Others argue that researchers make choices about which crimes to study, which evidence to use and how findings should be interpreted.
Outline and explain two reasons why sociological research into crime may not be completely objective.
[10 marks]
Question 8
Read Item B below and answer the question that follows.
Item B
Some sociologists argue that Sociology can study crime scientifically by identifying patterns, examining cause-and-effect relationships and testing explanations against empirical evidence.
Others argue that human behaviour cannot be investigated in exactly the same way as the natural world because people have consciousness, interpret situations and exercise choice. Sociologists may also be influenced by values.
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the extent to which sociological research into crime can be objective and scientific.
[20 marks]
Answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Answer: C. [1 mark]
Value freedom concerns attempting to prevent personal values from determining sociological findings.
Question 2
Award up to 2 marks:
1 mark for identifying objectivity as an attempt to produce knowledge independently of personal beliefs or opinions.
1 additional mark for explaining that the researcher seeks to prevent personal values or interpretations from distorting the findings.
Question 3
Award 2 marks for each clearly outlined reason.
Possible answers include:
sociologists can collect empirical evidence and examine observable patterns in crime
quantitative methods can produce standardised evidence that allows comparison
sociologists can develop explanations and test them against evidence
researchers can investigate relationships between measurable social factors
systematic procedures may increase reliability and reduce researcher influence.
Maximum 4 marks.
Question 4
Award up to 3 marks for each developed explanation.
Possible answers include:
a researcher's theoretical perspective may influence how a pattern of crime is interpreted
researchers must make decisions about what concepts or categories to use
qualitative evidence requires interpretation by the sociologist
interaction between researcher and participant may affect the evidence produced
different sociologists may give different meanings to the same pattern.
Maximum 6 marks.
Question 5
Award up to 6 marks for a developed explanation.
A strong answer should recognise both sides of the debate.
Official statistics appear objective because they provide numerical, systematically collected evidence that can be compared between groups.
However, the figures do not simply record all crime directly. They may be influenced by whether incidents are reported and recorded and by the operation of law enforcement. A researcher treating the figures as an unquestionable measurement of criminality may therefore overlook the social processes that produced the data.
For full marks, connect this explicitly to objectivity: apparently objective evidence still requires critical examination of its production and interpretation.
Question 6
A strong response should develop two distinct reasons.
Indicative content includes:
Choice of topic
Researchers decide which crime-related issues are worth studying. The decision to study corporate crime, victimisation, policing or another issue may reflect beliefs about what is socially important. Values may therefore enter the research process before data collection begins.
Choice of method
Researchers' theoretical assumptions and values may influence whether they prefer quantitative evidence or qualitative approaches designed to represent participants' experiences.
Interpretation
Evidence does not interpret itself. Sociologists may use different theories to explain the same crime pattern, so values and theoretical assumptions may influence which explanation they find convincing.
Definitions
Sociologists must decide how concepts such as crime or deviance are to be used in the research, creating room for theoretical and value judgements.
8 to 10 marks: Very good knowledge and understanding of two reasons, with developed application and analysis.
4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge of one or two reasons with some development.
1 to 3 marks: Limited understanding, general comments about bias or little focus on value freedom.
Evaluation is not required.
Question 7
A strong response should use both Item A and relevant sociological knowledge.
Possible reasons include:
Research decisions
The sociologist must decide what to study, which evidence to use and how concepts are defined. Such decisions may be affected by theoretical assumptions and values. Therefore, research cannot be entirely independent of human judgement.
Interpretation
Even when evidence has been collected systematically, the researcher must interpret what it means. Different perspectives may explain the same crime pattern differently.
Human interaction
Qualitative methods involve relationships between researchers and participants. The resulting evidence may therefore depend partly on interaction and interpretation.
Official categories
Crime statistics may appear objective but depend on social processes of reporting, recording and law enforcement.
For each reason, students should explain why the issue makes complete objectivity difficult rather than simply describing a research method.
8 to 10 marks: Two well-developed explanations with clear application and analysis.
4 to 7 marks: One or two reasonable explanations with some application.
1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge or a general answer about research-method weaknesses.
Question 8
A strong answer should maintain a clear debate about both scientific status and objectivity.
Arguments supporting scientific and objective Sociology may include:
positivists argue that society can be investigated using systematic scientific principles
empirical evidence allows explanations to be compared with observable data
quantitative methods permit identification of patterns and relationships
standardised procedures may improve reliability
researchers can seek cause-and-effect relationships
theories can generate testable claims
falsification encourages theories to remain open to challenge
explicit methods make research open to scrutiny
attempts at value freedom can separate evidence from personal moral judgement.
Arguments challenging this view may include:
people possess consciousness and free will
human behaviour involves meanings and interpretation
social life is complex and contains many interacting influences
interpretivists argue that validity may require flexible qualitative methods
official crime data are produced through processes of reporting, recording and enforcement
values may influence topic selection
theoretical assumptions may influence method choice
evidence requires interpretation
complete value freedom may therefore be difficult.
Debates about the definition of science may include:
empiricism
verification
falsification
paradigms
cause and effect
prediction
induction and deduction.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme specifically recognises these concepts as relevant to evaluating Sociology's scientific status.
Evaluation should be explicit.
For example:
The existence of subjective meanings challenges a simple positivist model because numerical regularities may not reveal why individuals behave as they do. However, this does not mean Sociology must abandon systematic evidence. It may instead mean that scientific sociological explanations need to recognise the distinctive characteristics of human social behaviour.
Judgement:
A strong conclusion could argue that sociological crime research can achieve a degree of objectivity through transparent, systematic and critically evaluated methods, but total objectivity and complete value freedom are difficult to guarantee. Whether Sociology is regarded as scientific therefore depends partly on how science is defined. If science requires empirical evidence, systematic testing and openness to criticism, sociological research can meet important scientific criteria. If it requires complete prediction and the isolation of variables found in highly controlled settings, the complexity and meaningful nature of human behaviour create greater difficulties.
17 to 20 marks: Sound, conceptually detailed knowledge of relevant debates, accurate and sensitive application of Item B, explicit analysis and evaluation, and an appropriate reasoned conclusion.
13 to 16 marks: Accurate, broad or deep knowledge with good application, but more limited explicit evaluation.
9 to 12 marks: Largely accurate but limited knowledge, with evaluation tending towards juxtaposed positions.
5 to 8 marks: Limited, undeveloped knowledge, possibly drifting into general features of research or science.
1 to 4 marks: Very limited relevant sociological material.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme uses this same broad standard for its 20-mark scientific-status question, with the highest level requiring conceptually detailed knowledge, accurate application, explicit analysis and evaluation, and an appropriate conclusion.
Comments