The main types of Sociology (and their characteristics)

Sociology is a young science. As quickly as one reads who the authors considered "classics" are, one realizes that the oldest are from the early nineteenth century.

Among them can be highlighted Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim or Max Weber, among others. In this article, I review very briefly what are some classifications of types of sociology that can be found regularly in this area. However, due to the early age of the discipline, although there are certain consensuses, in a wide range of areas there are still disagreements, some even vital to the discipline.

I am talking about questions such as whether statistical techniques can help us to explain social phenomena satisfactorily or not; whether it is "sensible" to use theories of behavior instead of "structural" theories; or if sociology can or could 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 good part of how we do research later: what techniques and kinds of models should we use to explain properly? Are individuals important when it comes to 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 pose, at this point, questions of this kind, at least as I have formulated them.

These constant discussions mean that the classifications you use here may change, or are in fact changing..

Three approaches to view sociology

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 that you use; according to the social phenomenon to which it refers; and according to the theoretical conception of "social phenomenon".

Due to space reasons, I do not focus on explaining each specific typology in depth. To do this, 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 its methodology

When investigating and falsifying hypotheses, sociology has generally relied on techniques that can be classified as qualitative and quantitative.

1.1. Qualitative techniques

Qualitative techniques They are designed to study everything that requires data that are very difficult to quantify and that at least they are epistemologically subjective. We are talking about ideas, perceptions, reasons, and signs that have meanings. Qualitative techniques are often used to explore topics for which there is little data, to face future research well with quantitative techniques.

In fact, these types of techniques are usually linked to research that is interested in study the phenomenology of the subjects regarding a social fact. For example, we can ask ourselves how identity is lived and understood in a particular social group. The in-depth interview, focus groups, and ethnography all represent techniques that have typically been linked to this field. Another qualitative technique used a lot in history is, for example, the historical narrative.

As usual, the sample of individuals of these techniques is usually much smaller than that of the quantitative techniques, as they follow different logics. For example, in the case of qualitative ones, one of the key objectives is to reach a saturation of the discourse, a point in which new interviews do not provide more relevant data than those already provided until the moment. In a statistical technique, on the other hand, the result of not reaching a certain necessary sampling number means, almost, the uselessness 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 be reduced themselves to a single individual. Statistics provides a series of techniques that make it possible to describe variables that belong to the set of individuals, while allowing to study associations between various variables, and apply certain techniques in order to predict.

Thanks to the increasingly widespread scope of the Big data and the Machine learning, statistical techniques have had a certain kind 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 huge amounts of data that allow a better precision description of phenomena social.

The other great area, that of artificial simulation, is relatively new and less well known. The approach and applicability of these techniques is different depending on which one is considered. For example, System Dynamics allows studying the relationships between collectivities by applying some models of differential equations that model aggregate behavior along with others aggregates. Another technique, that of Multi-Agent Simulation Models, allows programming artificial individuals that, by following rules, generate the social phenomenon that is created. aims to study from a modeling that takes into account individuals, their essential properties and rules, and the environment, without the need to introduce equations spreads.

So It is considered that this type of simulation techniques, despite being quite different, allow 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 at this point that both the Big Data revolution and the application of simulation techniques, inasmuch as that serve to study social systems, are now known as "Computational Social Science" (eg, 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:

• Sociology of work. For example: the study of the working conditions of workers in industrial Catalonia in the 19th century.

• Sociology of Education. For example: the study of social income inequalities in educational performance.

• Sociology of gender. For example: the comparative study of the day's activities between men and women.

To these three great themes, very general in themselves, others are added, such as studies of social mobility and social classes (Wright, E.: 1979); studies of fiscal behavior (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); studies of social influence (Watts, D.: 2009); organization studies (Hedström, P. & Wennberg, K.: 2016); social network studies (Snijders, T. et al.: 2007); etc.

Although some areas of study are well defined, the frontier of many others clearly touches other areas. For example, one could apply a view of the sociology of organizations to a typical study of the sociology of education. The same counts, for example, when applying the study of social networks to areas such as the sociology of work.

Finally, it should be noted that, although sociology has been quite isolated throughout the century XX, now the borders that separate it from other social sciences, from economics to anthropology and always touching psychology, are increasingly blurred, with interdisciplinary collaboration increasingly 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 sharply disagree with each other is that which defines and interprets what social phenomena are and what causes them, as well as what are their possible effects on social societies.

Simplifiedly, 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 moment and the person who has used it, in sociology generally this term is understood in the sense of "structures" of society that exist by themselves beyond the individual and that affect him causally in a direct way, usually without him being aware of their effect.

This vision corresponds to the proposal of Émile Durkheim, one of the classics of the discipline, and that can be summarized in that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts", a principle that can also be found in the Gestalt psychology. This vision, then, 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 view of social phenomena, very summarized here, has been the most popular in the last century, and today it 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 can 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 a society, they do not have to do it in the same way in other societies.. For example, European society may have a certain conception of what art is, of what is good. or bad, on what is the role of the state, and etc., and that the society of India has another completely different. What is the real 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 insofar as it is understood and conceptualized by the word (which is, of course, something created by and for beings humans). 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 the human being.

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 is committed to conceptualizing social phenomena as complex systems formed by individuals, whose actions in interaction with other individuals make up the causes of the emergence of phenomena social.

In fact, this perspective places special emphasis on uncovering the causal mechanisms that generate social phenomena. That is to say, the concrete actions of the individuals that, at the macro level, generate the phenomenon that 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 that we see occur.

In addition, 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), is clearly committed to the use of artificial simulation techniques from from which social phenomena can be better studied, understood (again) as systems complex.

As a last point, to say that analytical sociology wants to advance sociology by making it as similar to the rest of the sciences as possible in regard to to certain aspects of the research process (such as promoting the use of models and clearly betting on the mathematical-formal expression or, failing that, the computational one).

The relative of the borders 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 despite the fact that 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, on the other hand, 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 according to different criteria is Andrew Abbot Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. The book is written in a clear and pedagogical style, and gives an idea not only of sociology and its different types, but also of the other social sciences. Very useful to get into the subject.

Concluding

The conclusion we can reach is that we can find types of sociology according to (1) the method they use; (2) according to the field of study in which they focus; (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 fruit of the discipline's early age. We are talking about that, depending on whether one is in one position or another, one could affirm things that for another point of view are impossible or contrary, a fact that gives the feeling that neither is right and that, ultimately, the feeling of "progress" within the discipline is scarce or null.

However, Thanks to the advancement of certain methodologies, sociology, together with other social sciences, are increasingly able to better study social phenomena, as well as to propose better hypotheses that can be better contrasted and that can have greater validity.

Bibliographic references:

• Flaquer, Ll.: "Family policies in Spain within the framework of the European Union" in Lerner, S. & Melgar, L.: Families in the XXI century: Diverse Realities and Public Policies. Mexico: National Autonomous University of Mexico. 2010: 409-428.

• Noguera, J. et al.: Tax compliance, rational choice, and social influence: an agent-based model. Revue Française de Sociologie. 2014. 55 (4): 449-486.

• Schelling, T.: Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 1971. 1: 143-186.

• Snijders, T. et al.: "Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior" in Montfort, K. et al.: Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences. 2007: 41-47.

• Watts, D.: Computational social science. Exciting progress and future directions. The Bridge: Winter 2013.

• Watts, D. & Dodds, P.: “Threshold models of social influence” in Hedström, P. & Bearman, P.: The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009: 475-497.

• Esping-Andersen, G.: The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1990.

• Hedström, P.: Dissecting the Social. On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005.

• Hedström, P. & Bearman, P.: The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.

• Manzo, G.: Actions and Networks: More on the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Wiley. 2014.

• Wilensky, U. & Rand, W.: An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling. Massachusetts: MIT Press books. 2015.

• Wright, E. O.: Class, crisis, and the state. London: New Left Books. 1978.