Emergence of social geography

Definition

Social geography is a discipline that is part of human geography, and

that studies the relationships between different human societies, and the
territory they occupy, as well as their reciprocal way of affecting and
conditioning themselves. In some academies, such as the German one, this social
science is known by the name of critical geography, which comes to be an
equivalent.

Social geography saw its beginnings in the first decades of the 20th

century, when the main geographical currents of the academy were interested
some in the urban world (the so-called Chicago School) and others in the rural
world (the so-called French School). Each founded in its own way a field of
geographic study focused on the human way of life.

These trends prevailed until the 1970s, when the discipline was recast to
emphasize the main problems of the post-industrial world, such as the
distribution of wealth, the rural exodus, the development-underdevelopment
dialectic, among others.

So social geography adheres today to a perspective more focused on the

idea of population, including their internal inequalities, their organizational
dynamics and their link with the territory they occupy. Everything that concerns
populations as human systems interrelated with their environment is of interest to
this discipline.
 1.1 RESEARCH METHODS OF SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY
Like many other social sciences and branches of geography, social
geography is in constant evaluation and rethinking of its research methods,
making use of the new technologies available thanks to computer science and the
information society.

In that sense, techniques such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

are an important source of data. They can also be surveys and massive
consultations, carried out today much more easily over the Internet.

Given that its main purpose is to get into the way of inhabiting a territory
that a certain community possesses, its conceptual tools tend to be more
humanistic, that is, to be quantitative or qualitative, depending on the type of
approach of the social experience you want to examine.

1.2 OBJECT OF STUDY OF SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY

As we said before, social geography mainly studies human populations

and their respective dynamics with the geographic environment, that is, with
its natural environment. Said more synthetically, it studies the human being and
the territory in which it operates.

This happens not only by the way of occupying the territory and
distributing the population in it, but also by the different types of communities
that make up a population, the possible groupings that arise from them, their
needs and ways of exercising subjectivity within the confines of a given territory.
 1.3 AUXILIARY SCIENCES OF SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY
Social geography relies on other sciences and disciplines to complement its
approach, drawing on knowledge from anthropology, sociology, demography,
economics and political science, to have a more holistic view of society.

In addition, it approaches history, social communication, urban planning

and philosophy to search for possible sources of interpretation and
subjectivities. At the same time, you can use concepts and tools from
mathematics, statistics, climatology, and other branches of geography.

Social geography deals with the analysis of social phenomena in space. It

is a branch of human geography that is more closely related to social theory in
general and sociology in particular, dealing with the relation of social
phenomena and its spatial components.

The term ‘social geography’ carries with it an inherent confusion. In the

popular perception the distinction between social and cultural geography is
not very clear. The idea which has gained popularity with the geographers is
that social geography is an analysis of social phenomena as expressed in
space.

Social geography, a recent sub discipline has developed since 1945. It

was mainly concerned with the identification of different regions, themselves
reflecting geographic pattern of association of social phenomena. Socio-
geographical studies of population distribution and ethnic composition in urban
areas emerged as a major trend during this phase

Fitzgerald, who first tried to define social geography in 1946, equated it

with almost whole of human geography.
 J. W. Watson in 1957 defined it ‘as the identification of different regions
of the earth according to associations of social phenomena related to the total
environment’.

R.E. Pahl in 1965 gave the definition of social geography as ‘the study of
the pattern and processes in understanding socially defined populations in their
spatial setting’.

History

Upto to 1945, social geography was mainly concerned with the

identification of different regions, themselves reflecting geographic patterns of
associations of social phenomena. In fact, during the twenties and the thirties of
the 20th century, social geography started its agenda of research with the study
of population as organised in settlements, particularly urban settlements. The
process of urbanisation had thrown up issues of social concern such as access to
civic amenities and housing and the related sociopathological issues, such as
incidence of crime, juvenile delinquency and other expressions of mental ill-
health. Socio-geographical studies of population distribution and ethnic
composition in urban areas emerged as a major trend during this phase. The
underlying idea was to examine the social content of the urban space which
resulted from coming together of diverse ethnic groups within a city. The city
with its specific functional specialization cast these social groups in its mould,
resulting in the assimilation of diverse elements into a universal urban ethos.

Emphasis on population characteristics remained a major preoccupation

of social geographers till the fifties of this century. During the fifties, the
tradition continued with social geographers mainly preoccupied with population
characteristics.
 Social geographers differentiated between regions on the basis of the
dominant patterns as social phenomena, mostly based on the population
characteristics. Later, under the influence of the rising tide of quantification,
social geographers started employing area-specific data in order to discover
spatial patterns. This focus on pattern identification received a major impetus in
the early and mid 1960s with the application of quantitative methods in
geography. During the phase of development, the major focus of research
remained on the analysis of the social data for the cities. American sociology
adopted social area analysis as a technique for relating social structure with
urban patterns. In this connection reference may be made to the pioneering
work of two American sociologists, E. Shevky and W. Bell. The technique was
criticized for being mechanistic as there was no link between the social scaling
and differentiation of population within the urban space. As a method social
area analysis was abandoned in favour of what came to be known as factorial
ecology. Its importance, however, lies I n the fact that at a certain stage in the
historical development of social geography it played a highly seminal role
furnishing a basis for systematic analysis of urban social space.

Modern phase of social geography

The late 1960s saw rapid and radical social change, dominated by such
events as the Vietnam War and wars of liberation in remaining colonies. The
social relevance movement in the contemporary social sciences also affected
geography and issues such as race, crime, health and poverty received an
increasingly large attention. The progress of social geography in the decades
since 1960 has taken into several main paths, each cluster of research acquiring
the status of a school of thought in its own way.
 1. A welfare or humanistic school mainly concerned with the state of
social well-being as expressed by territorial indicates of housing, health and
social pathology largely within the theoretical framework of welfare economics.
Humanistic geography studies human awareness and human agency, human
consciousness and human creativity. It, therefore, deals with the meaning, value
and human significance of life events.

2. A radical school which employed Marxian theory to explain the basic

causes of poverty and social inequality. This school of thought related the
contemporary social problems to the development of capitalism. For example,
cities and the communities within the city were perceived as organised spatially
in response to the class relations and the Marxian interpretation was that a
welfare approach might not to be helpful.

3. The main theme of ‘Possibilism’ is that the nature or physical

surroundings provide a range of possibilities to man and man makes a choice.
This choice depends on his needs, aspirations and capacities. Man establishes
relationships with nature not as an individual, but as a group or society. In other
words, man views this relationship through the filter or prism of culture.
‘Culture’ here includes beliefs, institutions, traditions, attitudes, religion,
language, diet, habits, customs, skills and technology, etc. In this way, man
creates his own habitat, the local modified environment within which the man
lives, works or acts. This habitat is a distinct landscape created or developed
because of man’s occupancy, imprint and usage. The present ways of life of a
society, its cultural, socioeconomic and overall development, is the result of the
history of its occupation of the physical surroundings.

4. Behavioral approach to social geography attempts to understand

human activity in space, place, and environment by studying it at the
 disaggregate level of analysis-at the level of the individual person. Behavioral
geographers analyze data on the behavior of individual people, recognizing that
individuals vary from each other. This approach holds that models of human
activity and interaction can be improved by incorporating more realistic
assumptions about human behavior.

Conclusion

It is obvious that contemporary social geography is in line with the

theoretical development in human geography as a whole. This does not mean
that the welfare or humanistic concerns or the quest for the causes of social
inequality and class based exploitation or phenomenological perceptions of
space have replaced the traditional concerns of areal differentiation and regional
identification. All these approaches have continued to co-exit

Scope and significance of social geography

Scope Of Social Geography

Social Geography is primarily concerned with the ways in which social relations,
identities and inequalities are created.

• How these social creations vary over space and the role of space in their
construction is the principle distinction between sociology and social geography

. ▪ Social Interaction and relations

•According to PANOPIO,1997, Social interaction refers to the mutual inter

stimulation and response between two or more persons and groups through
symbols, language, gestures and expression of ideas.
 • Social interaction is the foundation of society. Without interaction there
would be no group life. Social interaction has different form of interaction:

1. Between individual to individual

2. Between Individual to Groups

3. Between groups to groups

4. Between individual and culture

Formation of Social Groups

• Unit of interacting personalities with interdependence of roles and statuses

existing between and among themselves

• Collection of people where members interact on a regular basis, guide by

structure and agreements, defined by roles and responsibilities.

Characteristics of Social groups

• Group members interact on a fairly regular basis through communication. •

Members should develop a structure where each member assumes a specific
status and adopts a particular role. • Certain orderly procedures and values are
agreed upon. • The members of the group feel a sense of identity.

Types of Social Groups

: 1. Primary Group (Families, Play groups)

2. Secondary Group (industrial workers, Faculty Staff)

3. According Self-identification
4. According to purpose

5. According to geographic location

Community and Society

• The Primary difference between a community and Society is that a community

is limited to a specific geographic location, but a society can be made up of
people who live in different places.Another difference is that a society is made
up of direct and indirect social connections between people, but a community is
made up of individuals who are more closely connected. For example, people
who live in town represent a community, whereas everyone who lives in the
state the town is located in makes up a society. Several communities can be
located within a society but each society is separate from another.

• Societies often include more diversity, with people from different

backgrounds, social classes and races. People in communities most often share
similar characteristics.

Concept of Social Space

• A social space is physical or virtual space such as a social center, online social
media, or other gathering place where people gather and interact.

• Some social spaces such as town squares or parks are public places and
others such as pubs, websites or shopping malls are private places.

• Henri emphasized that in human society all “Space is social: It involves

assigning more or less appropriated places to social relations.

Socio-cultural Region
Socio cultural regions helps us to understand the soul of the place. The well we
know the socio cultural regions, it is easier to understand the people,
agriculture, traditions seasons, and buying selling periods We can also plot
them. For Example Cooking Medium .Some Socio Cultural regions are mustard
oil users and some may be ground nut oil users. We can also map hard and soft
water. A social planner have many maps. These maps helps us to know about
the particular region

Approaches to study social geography

Empirical approach

Introduction

Empiricism is a philosophical idea that experience, which is based on

observation and experimentation, is the only source of knowledge. Empiricism
believes that the mind is a blank canvas and all knowledge arrives in the mind
through the portals that are the 5 senses.
It believes that all that we as a race know about the world is what the world
wishes to tell us. Empiricism states that only information garnered using ones
senses should be decreed as credible when making a decision An essential
characteristic of it is its commitment to the position that all knowledge is
dependent on experience.. It is directly in opposition with the fundamental ideas
and attitudes associated with another philosophical doctrine, Rationalism.
Rationalism champions all knowledge which is gathered through reason as
opposed to through the senses. Essentially Rationalism vs Empiricism is a battle
of reason vs. experience. Empiricism has been largely discredited as a discipline
in an academic Geographical context but is still widely used in both human and
physical geography. The Empirical Method is defined as a method of using a
collection of data to form the basis of a theory and essentially form a scientific
conclusion. The word empirical means information gained by experience,
observation, or experiment. The central theme in scientific method is that all
evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence.
Francis Bacon was termed the ‘father’ of empiricism. He deemed that the
human mind gained their knowledge only through the senses and that the
development of the ability to free the mind of all biases and consciences that
could inhibit th

1.4 WHAT IS POSITIVISM?

Positivism is a philosophical theory that asserts all authentic
knowledge can be verified through scientific methods such as observation,
experiments, and mathematical/logical proof. These scientific methods
provide concrete facts as they investigate facts based on measurable,
observable and empirical evidence, which are subject to principles
of reasoning and logic. Therefore, positivism only accepts scientifically
and empirically verifiable facts as knowledge, and everything else as
nonexistent. Overall, positivists believe that all problems human beings
face will be reduced or eradicated with scientific progress.

However, it is also important to note that according to this theory

humans first gain information from sensory experience. Then, this theory
is interpreted through reason and logic. Therefore, empiricism serves as
the foundation of positivism. Moreover, positivism states that valid
knowledge is found only in a posterior knowledge (knowledge based on
experience).

We usually attribute the development of the doctrine of positivism to

the nineteenth century French Philosopher Auguste Comte. Comte
believed that “each branch of our knowledge passes successively through
three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious; the
metaphysical, or abstract; and the scientific, or positive.” And, this last
condition refers to positivism, which he believed was the ideal stage.
Émile Durkheim is another prominent figure in positivism.
 Figure 01: Auguste Comte

Furthermore, positivism is similar in its outlook to scientism, and

there are many branches of positivism such as logical positivism, legal
positivism, and sociological positivism.

Positivism is a term used to describe an approach to the study of

society that relies specifically on empirical scientific evidence, such as
controlled experiments and statistics.
Positivism is a belief that we should not go beyond the boundaries of
what can be observed. To a positivist, science is the single-most important
route to knowledge, and only questions that can be approached by the
application of the scientific method should concern us.
 Reality exists outside and independently of the mind and there for it
can be studied objectively and as a real thing. They believe that there are
social facts which make up the rules of society which are separate and
independent of individuals.

Social facts are things such as institutions, norms and values which
exist external to the individual and constrain the individual.

Sociological positivism holds that society, like the physical world,

functions based on a set of general laws. Positivism is based on the
assumption that by observing social life, scientists can develop reliable
and consistent knowledge about its inner workings.

Thus, sociological positivists argue that, by applying scientific

principles of research to the study of society, sociologists will be able to
put forward proposals for social change which will lead to a better society.

Due to this belief Positivists believe that society can be studied in the
same way as the natural world and that patterns can be observed and
analyzed to create the social facts which rule society.

This method is called inductive reasoning, which involves

accumulating data about the world through careful observation and
measurement. From this data a theory can be formed and verified
through further study.

Positivists believe that sociology should follow the objective

experimental methods that the natural sciences follow so that the
research remains value free and patterns and causation can be
established.
 Positivists prefer quantitative data and as far as possible should
follow the experimental method of the natural sciences. This will allow
them to uncover and measure patterns of behavior which will lead them
to create social facts which govern society. Also by using quantitative data
the positivists believe that they are able to uncover cause and effect that
determine human behavior.

Positivism as a general term has at least three meanings. It can be a

description of how Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim describe social
evolution, the philosophical tradition of logical positivism, or a set of
scientific research methods (Riley, 2007).

1.5 WHAT IS EMPIRICISM?

Empiricism is a theory that states the origin of all knowledge is sense experience.
The theory emphasizes the role of the five senses (visual, auditory, tactile, olfacto
ry, and gustatory sensation) in obtaining knowledge and presents the argument
that humans can only have a posteriori knowledge. Moreover, empiricists reject
the idea of innate or inborn knowledge.
Early empiricists have described the mind as a blank slate (tabula rasa) when we
enter the world. Accordingly, it is only through the acquisition of experience that
humans gain knowledge and information. However, this claim questions the
validity of religious and ethical concepts since these are concepts we cannot
directly observe or experience. John Locke, George Berkeley, John Stuart Mill,
and David Hume are some leading figures in empiricism.
Figure 2: John Locke
Moreover, empiricism is in direct contrast to rationalism, which states that
knowledge comes through reason, not experience.
2. Empiricism and Its Limitation

This paper will discussed throw some lights on the limits of modern
empiricism. A critical analysis of modern empiricism especially the
Humeans and Kantians shows that it culminates in scepticism,
Subjectivism and agnosticism. The crisis of modern empiricism is that
the logical culmination of these phases of modern empiricism denies
the existence of objective reality. It also ignores the dialectical
relationship of the subjective and objective factors of knowledge.
Traditional empiricists emphasized that, sense experience is the only
guide in our understanding of the world; that it is the only method and
criterion of knowledge and truth. This opinion or judgment cannot be
established on the evidence of experience, is to be treated as uncertain,
false or even superstitions, no ideas are there that are not tractable in
terms of sense experience. According to them all concepts, all
knowledge and all scientific generalizations are ultimately reducible to
sensations and perceptions (Hospers, 1967).

“Man is the measure of all things”—the ancient Greek sophists may be

termed as the fore runner of the modern empiricists, particularly of
Locke’s “mind” as the “Tabula rasa” (Locke, 1959). To my mind, both
the sophists and the modern empiricists have laid great emphasis on
the sense experiences of man as a source of his knowledge of life and
world. According to them, man derives knowledge through the five
sense experiences likely sight, hearing, smell touch ad taste. Of course,
one may distinguish between direct and indirect experience.

Direct experience means that one gets acquainted with an object

himself or herself though a physical contact with the object, such as A
smells the rose, D touches the table and Z hears a sound. On the other
hand, indirect experience gets that the subject is personally involved in
the knowledge process. He or she gets knowledge about the object
hearing from some person or reading a book. Direct or indirect
experiences do not however, make any essential difference in so far as
the means through which knowledge is acquired.

2.1. Perception Is the Only Source of Knowledge

As a theory of knowledge empiricism upholds the view that experience
is the only source of knowledge, or that senses alone can provide us
with knowledge. This form of empiricism can be refuted only by one
who has such a conception that senses alone can provide us with
knowledge. The common-sense view is that, the senses do provide us
with knowledge of some sort and most of the people adopt this kind of
empirical view. According to Hume, if unknown matters of fact are
concerned, one does not know of any belief that could be called
reasonable (Hume, 1960). Induction and knowledge are our strongest
beliefs. We never can give them up. But their creditability cannot be
proved to be rational. As they have no basis of experience, their truth
can never be necessarily established. For Hume if necessity has a
meaning it must be translatable into observable relationships. Thus
Hume’s philosophy ends with the thesis that no knowledge is possible
and no science is possible (Hume, 1902). Hume denies the logical
justification of inductive reasoning. According to him, if we accept the
arguments based on past experience as the standard of our future
judgments then it would be probable only. He claims that, arguments
concerning existence are founded on the relation of cause and effect.
The relation, he says, is only probable not necessary. Inductive leap, for
Hume is nothing but an inference of one proposition from the other; to
say that it is experimental is begging the question.

J. Ayer holds that, one cannot be absolutely sure about what one
knows. Necessity is knowledge is to be found in a limited sense. What is
known must be true, but that truth is not a necessary truth. We know
matters of fact as a true as far as; it is possible on our part to establish
them as true. Ayer thus holds that absolute necessity cannot be
obtained in knowledge, but scientific knowledge is definitely true. It is
not rational to discuss that knowledge of science as true as they are
absolutely necessary (Ayer, 1964).

Like Hume, the empiricism of Russell also results in skepticism. It

becomes clear when he raises the question: “Is there any knowledge in
the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
Russell gets straight into the problem of justification i.e. whether there
is any justification of drawing inferences from past sense data.
According to Russell’s view all knowledge is in some degree doubtful
and we cannot say what degree of doubtfulness makes it to be
knowledge (Yudin, 1967). He points out that all particular facts that are
known without inference are facts known by perception or memory,
that is to say, through experience. In this respect the empiricist’s
principle calls for no limitation. But our knowledge is not confined to
perception or memory alone (Russell, 1961). We admit the validity of
scientific knowledge which is based on generalizations from
experience. Inferential knowledge or induction cannot be supported by
experience only. Induction needs the support of some extra-logical
general principles that are not based upon experience. The causal
principle and the law of uniformity of nature must supplement
experience to make induction possible. And this, According to Russell,
shows that empiricism as a theory of knowledge is inadequate.

According to Russell, we are acquainted with our sense-data and

probably with ourselves. Induction, for him, is to draw inferences from
these sense-data. For example, “The sun will rise tomorrow” this
statement is inferred from the past sense-data, which is not certain,
rather probable only. Russell says that, still there remains a probability
that “The sun may not rise tomorrow.” So drawing inferences from past
sense-data is only probable. There, by denying the certainty of scientific
knowledge (cause effect relationship) both Hume and Russell have
opened the door for skepticism (Hudson, 1991).

Immanuel Kant has of course, told in his Critique of Pure Reason that
every knowledge begins with experience both apriori and a posteriori
knowledge but not all knowledge arises out of experience, only a
posteriori knowledge arises out of experience; and there is also an
apriori knowledge of the world which occurs through a perception of
the nature of the thing about which the statement is made. In one case
we deal with a posteriori knowledge and in the other, with apriori
knowledge. In one case knowledge arises out of experience, in the other
experience is only the occasion for my coming to know (Kant, 1965).

Although Kant made a historic attempt to synthesize empiricism and

rationalism, the empiricist do not accept that arithmetical, geometrical,
logical and ethical judgments are completely apriori. Can anyone have
an insight or knowledge through intellect or reason that 3 + 3 = 6
unless one did not have similar experiences in the past? Can one
conclude that all circles are round if one would have noticed an
exception to it? Because we have always seen that things having shapes
have always sizes we can, with the help of reason, make the judgment
that a thing that has a shape has a size. Similarly, consequences of
unnecessary infliction of pains were found to be evil in the previous
occasions, and hence the conclusion is: unnecessary infliction of pain is
evil.
2.2. Some Traditional Empiricist Views

Traditional empiricism gives exclusive importance to experience and

emphasizes that metaphysics is impossible. Kant and many others
accept this view about metaphysics. Kant does not uphold the
empiricist theory of knowledge (Kant, 1965). Nevertheless, his
conception of metaphysics is very much similar to that of Hume.
According to both of them metaphysics as the science of supra-sensible
reality is impossibility. But of thought that logical positivists try to
show that metaphysics as the attempt to demonstrate that there are
entities which lie beyond the reach of any possible experience is a non-
sensible effort. According to the logical positivists the meaning of a
proposition lies in its verifiability (Hempel, 1966). Metaphysics makes
references to entities which are not accessible to observation, that is,
which cannot be verified by experience. There is much about which the
rationalist and the empiricist are in agreement. The important question
however is: Are there any synthetic a priori statements? The
rationalists say there are while the empiricist says there are not. This is
the controversial issue. With respect to this question rationalism and
empiricism are mutually exclusive and exhaustive alternatives. This
means that one must be either a rationalist or an empiricist but cannot
be both (Edwards, 1967). An empiricist believes that, 1) all a priori
statements are analytic and 2) all synthetic statements are a posteriori.
Of course, empiricists disagree among themselves as to which of these
two categories a given statement belongs to. The rationalist, while
accepting only the converses of these two statements as true, believes
that it is possible to break these pairs. Rationalists may not all agree
among themselves on which truths are synthetic and a priori, but
anyone who holds that there is even one synthetic a priori truth is a
rationalist. It is up to the rationalist to produce examples of synthetic a
priori truth (Ayer, 1964). On the other hand, it is up to the empiricist to
F. M. A. Hossain 228 show that the examples given by the rationalist
are not examples of synthetic a priori truths. The empiricist may do this
in either of two ways. Given any alleged example, he may show that: 1)
If it is a priori, then it is not synthetic but analytic; or 2) If it is
synthetic, then it is not a priori but a posteriori (Ayer, 1964). The
function of philosophy would then be just to analyze objects into
atomic facts. A comprehensive view of the whole universe as really a
structure of elementary entities would be a metaphysical non-sense.
Although Carnap and Ayer who led the two camps to logical positivism
discuss the conception that empirical knowledge free from any risk or
error can ever be established. They however reject the skeptic stand on
induction and give a new meaning to knowledge, science and
metaphysics (Odegard, 1982). Experience is a comprehensive term and
it has various dimensions. Experience essentially means a closer type of
contract of the knower with the object known. Experience is an object
or thing makes us understand with the thing or object is; it qualifies the
object with some attributes. Speaking a bit differently, the ‘this’ and the
‘that’ of an object become meaningful to the knower through a medium
which we call meaningful to the knower through a medium, which we
call the experience of the object (Russell, 1912). Experiences, thus
results, in knowledge and understanding of those things and objects
about which we have the experience. Experience a conscious awareness
of something; it may mean all the data and processes of consciousness.
2.3. Sense Perception Is Consistent with Reality Accepting sense
perceptions to be the source of knowledge, agnostics hold that
knowledge is true, in so far as sense perceptions are consistent with
reality, but false if it is inconsistent. Hume opines that: The mind has
never anything present to it but the perceptions and cannot possibly
reach any experience of their connection with objects (Hume, 1966).
Although Hume is an idealist his theory of sense perceptions denies the
existence of God. This aspect of Hume’s agnosticism at first appealed to
some scientists because it was spearheaded against theology. The
agnostics deny the existence of the material world and the possibility of
cognition. They also reduce all knowledge to sense perception. They are
unable to explain how certain ideas and concepts irreducible to
sensuous images and sensations. It is very clear that, traditional
empiricism has got its own limits. We cannot doubt the empiricist view
that we have no formal justification of induction. But that does not
disprove induction. Ayer rightly points to the fact that for induction
there is not better argument than induction itself (Ayer, 1946). For both
our knowledge of the past and our knowledge of the other minds rest
on inductive reasoning. He says that, it is logically impossible for us to
have direct knowledge either the past or other people’s experiences. In
both cases our knowledge rests on inferences from what we observe.
Our knowledge about the past rests on our observation of what is now
happening-inferences about the past being in this respect parallel to
predictive about the future; our knowledge of other people’s
experiences rests on our observation of the displays of feelings in the
behavior of other people (Steven, 1970). It is logically possible that our
statements about the past are mistaken and it is logically possible that
other people have no mind; but all the same we can rightly and
reasonably claim to be sure about a particular event of the past or a
present feeling of our dear and near ones (Passmore, 1932). Strict
adherences to the empiricist principle that induction is not possible
complete us to burn metaphysics along with science. This is why; now-
a-days traditional empiricism has got no place in philosophical circle.
Empiricism in the moderated sense of Ayer, Russell and others
establishes knowledge, science and metaphysics as possible. 2.4.
Empiricism Led to Subjectivism Empiricism ultimately leads to
subjectivism, which not only denies the independent existence of
subjective reality, but also completely ignores the dialectical
relationship between the subjective and objective factors of knowledge.
It cannot see how the objective enriches the subjective (Passmore,
1932). It ignores the dialectical character of subject-object relationship.
Empiricism would deprive philosophy of any kind of pursuit for
knowing the “reality”. It would only analyze objects and leave the study
of the reality (Lenin, 1967). But it is very much necessary to have some
knowledge of the whole when we try to know the parts analytically. An
empiricist may still insist that the statement is a posteriori in the sense
that it is known on the basis of experience and what we have to await
the verdict of experience to ascertain whether the statement holds true
or false (Hospers, 1967). In this case the empiricist must hold that the
statement may be either true or false. But perhaps few people will F. M.
A. Hossain 229 accept this view. Even a skeptic who is in doubt as to
whether the sun will rise in the east. It will not likely to deny that our
statement is necessarily true. We have tried to show how in our day to
day reasoning we unconsciously take synthetic a priori statements for
granted without being aware of it. If empiricism is correct no statement
which has a factual content can be necessary or certain. Consequently,
there are two ways of dealing with the truths of logic and mathematics
which are open to the empiricist. Like all empirical hypotheses, the
truths of logic and mathematics were theoretically fallible. Being
inductive generalizations they were not certain but only highly
probable, and the difference between them and the hypotheses of
natural science was a difference in degree and not in kind, according to
Mills’ view. 3. Conclusion Moreover, empiricism is not to be totally
accepted because it presumes that the world falls apart into two classes
of entities. Firstly, “subjects” whose principal task is to perceive and
secondly, “objects” which are only to be perceived. But this whole idea
is defective. If there is a sharp distinction between the subject and the
object, there could never be any link which could possibly connect
substances so disparate. For example, a spiritual substance could ever
perceive an external world. This is why the neutral monists, the
supporters of the identity theory, Strawson and others reject the idea
that body and mind are substantially disparate (Ayer, 1964). Neutral
monism upholds the view that there is no metaphysical dualism of
body and mind, but only a structural difference between them as both
are made of the same elementary stuff. The traditional empiricist view
that our status in the world is like that of a spectator or a looker-on.
They hold that the world is phenomenological revealed to the human
being as his world, not in the sense of being the world which he
perceives but as being the world he cares about made up of things
which are hindrances or helps (Brightman, 1954). Through a detailed
discussion or critical examination of the theories mentioned above,
knowledge includes a dialectical unity of the subject and the object. The
 subjective is the product of the development of the material world. The
subjective comprises an objective content in as much as it reflects
objective reality. The existence of the subjective is an objective fact,
independent of man’s consciousness. Consequently, even the objective
is above all a reality independent of the subject and the fact that for the
subject it exists only in so far as the subject exists, is not a condition of
its own existence. Empiricism in the traditional sense cannot meet the
demands of enquiries in the fields of epistemology and metaphysics
because of its inherent limitations. Empiricism cannot provide us with
the certainty of scientific knowledge in the sense that it denies the
existence of objective reality, ignores the dialectical relationship of the
subjective and objective contents of knowledge.

1.6 WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POSITIVISM AND EMPIRICISM?

Empiricism serves as the foundation of positivism. According to these two
theories, humans first gain information from sensory experience (this is
empiricism). Then, this experience is interpreted through reason and logic (this is
positivism).

1.7 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POSITIVISM AND EMPIRICISM?

Positivism is a philosophical theory that states that the only authentic knowledge
is scientific knowledge while empiricism is a theory that states that the origin of
all knowledge is sense experience (visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory and
olfactory sensation). So, this is the key difference between positivism and
empiricism. Also, stemming from the above is another difference between
positivism and empiricism. In positivism, knowledge can be verified through
scientific methods and mathematical/logical proof, while in empiricism, the
experience is the origin of knowledge.
Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim are two prominent figures in positivism
while John Locke, George Berkeley, John Stuart Mill, and David Hume are
prominent empiricists.
1.8 SUMMARY – POSITIVISM VS EMPIRICISM
Positivism and empiricism are two major philosophical theories that analyze the
origin and nature of knowledge. The key difference between positivism and
empiricism is that positivism is a theory that states all authentic knowledge is
scientific knowledge whereas empiricism is a theory that states sense experience
is the source and origin of all knowledge.

Positivism is a term used to describe an approach to the study of society that relies
specifically on empirical scientific evidence, such as controlled experiments and statistics.
Positivism is a belief that we should not go beyond the boundaries of what can be
observed. To a positivist, science is the single-most important route to knowledge, and only
questions that can be approached by the application of the scientific method should
concern us.

Reality exists outside and independently of the mind and there for it can be studied
objectively and as a real thing. They believe that there are social facts which make up the
rules of society which are separate and independent of individuals.
Social facts are things such as institutions, norms and values which exist external to the
individual and constrain the individual.
Sociological positivism holds that society, like the physical world, functions based on a set
of general laws. Positivism is based on the assumption that by observing social life,
scientists can develop reliable and consistent knowledge about its inner workings.
Thus, sociological positivists argue that, by applying scientific principles of research to the
study of society, sociologists will be able to put forward proposals for social change which
will lead to a better society.
Due to this belief Positivists believe that society can be studied in the same way as the
natural world and that patterns can be observed and analyzed to create the social facts
which rule society.
This method is called inductive reasoning, which involves accumulating data about the
world through careful observation and measurement. From this data a theory can be
formed and verified through further study.
Positivists believe that sociology should follow the objective experimental methods that the
natural sciences follow so that the research remains value free and patterns and causation
can be established.
Positivists prefer quantitative data and as far as possible should follow the experimental
method of the natural sciences. This will allow them to uncover and measure patterns of
behavior which will lead them to create social facts which govern society. Also by using
quantitative data the positivists believe that they are able to uncover cause and effect that
determine human behavior.
Positivism as a general term has at least three meanings. It can be a description of how
Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim describe social evolution, the philosophical tradition
of logical positivism, or a set of scientific research methods (Riley, 2007).

1.9KEY PRINCIPLES
Positivism has moved from the realm of philosophy to sociology. Nonetheless, positivism in
philosophy and sociology share, according to Kolakowski (1972) four main rules:

1.9.1.1.1.1 The rule of phenomenalism

To positivists, experience is the foundation of human knowledge. According to the rule of
phenomenalism. scientists should only make observations of and record what they actually
perceive through their experiences.
Kolaski (1966) emphasizes that positivists do not necessarily ignore events and phenomena
that are initially invisible; however, they do object to accounting for “supernatural” events
and beings for which knowledge is by definition unknowable by humans.
For sociologists, the rule of phenomenalism brings about three main difficulties.
Firstly, while this rule apparently encourages sociologists to use empirical research
methods, many have accused sociologists who use these methods of over-abstractifying the
social world (Mills, 2000; Willer et al., 1973).
Secondly, in sociology, the rule of phenomenalism demands that there is a common way to
observe experiences without adding in subjectivity. Yet, beyond the work of, say, Durkheim
in The Rules of the Sociological Method (1938), sociologists have not put emphasis on
finding a “neutral observation language” (Bryant, 1985).
Thirdly, as Kolakowski himself notes, it is difficult to be sure exactly what can be observed,
and what cannot. For example, discussions around ‘realism’ in sociology have resulted in
observing hidden structures and mechanisms that Comte would have likely called
unobservable (Keat and Urry, 1975; Bryant, 1985).
1.9.1.1.1.2 The rule of nominalism
According to the rule of nominalism, science is a way of recording experiences, and the
recording of experiences can not create knowledge about parts of reality that were
previously inaccessible to empirical research (Kolakowski, 1966).
This has created controversy in sociology, specifically around whether or not social facts
are the same as individual facts. Historically, divides over this question have created breaks
between schools of positivism (Bryant, 1985)
1.9.1.1.1.3 The rule that refuses to call value judgments and normative statements
knowledge
Sociology brings up the issue of whether or not the evaluations that a sociologist makes
about the social world can be judged scientifically or rationally.
Positivists believe that research should be detached from subjective feelings and
interpretations it is claimed that a scientist's beliefs and values have no impact on their
findings and sociologists should be the same.
To some, such as Giddens (1974), judgments of value that are not based on empirical
evidence, meaning that they cannot be proven valid or invalid through experience, are not
knowledge.
1.9.1.1.1.4 Belief in the essential unity of the scientific method
Finally, Kolakowski says that the scientific method can be applied to all ways of knowing.
Different positivists interpret what Kolakowski means by unity differently.
For example, some positivists have argued that the unity of science stems from a single
fundamental law that all other laws can be derived from - such as Saint-Simon, who argues
that this fundamental law is the law of gravity).
However, Kolaski himself holds that different types of science have certain principles and
practices in common (Kolakowski, 1972; Bryant, 1985).

1.10 THEORIES OF POSITIVISM

Usually, scholars say that the French philosopher Auguste Comte coined the term
positivism in his Cours de Philosophie Positive (1933). This is not completely accurate, as
Comte did not write about the term positivism itself, but about the so-called “positive
philosophy” and “positive method;” and the philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon wrote about
these ideas before him (Bryant, 1985).
Positivism has a long history in sociology which began in the French tradition. Following
Saint-Simon’s application to positivism with industry and science and Comte’s
commentary on science and religion, Emile Durkheim offered what scholars widely
considered to be a positivistic interpretation of sociology and education.
Nonetheless, Durkheim was himself a critique of positivism, connecting positivism with an
oversimplified conception of social science and exaggeration of the field’s achievements,
both of which he considered dangerous to the new applied social sciences.
Durkheim rejected attempts to reduce the complexity of humanity to a single law or
formula. He attacked Comte for assuming “that mankind in its totality constitutes a single
society which always and everywhere evolves in the same manner” when “what exists in
reality are particular societies (tribes, nations, cities, states of all kinds, and so on), which
are born and die, progress and regress, each in its own manner, pursuing divergent goals''
(Durkheim, 1915).
Despite these criticisms, Durkheim argued that sociology deals with social facts and social
facts alone (1895), that people are controlled by certain factors that can be seen through
how individuals act, and that by observing how people act, sociologists can figure out social
facts.
Following Durkheim, Comte, and Saint-Simon, positivism evolved into different branches
in both Germany and Austria and the United States.
Discussions around positivism began in Germany and Austria around economics; more
generally about the differences between the natural and the historical, cultural and social
sciences.
A dispute over the place of values in academic social sciences known as the value-freedom
dispute; and a further dispute over whether sociology should be university departments
(Bryant, 1985).
The Vienna Circle and the Frankfurt School would come to shape German-Austrian positivism
following World War I. The Vienna circle was a group of philosophers and scientists from the
natural and social sciences, logic, and mathematics who met from 1924 to 1936 at the
University of Vienna.
1.10.1.1.1.1 Vienna Circle
The Vienna Circle conceptualized the world as empiricist and positivist - that there is only
knowledge from experience. And secondly, that logical analysis can be used to gather
knowledge about the world.
This concept of Logical Analysis differentiates the Vienna Circle from earlier positivisms.
According to logical analysis, there are two kinds of statements: those reducible to simpler
statements about what is empirically given, and those that cannot be reduced to statements
about empirical experience.
The second statements, such as those in the field of metaphysics, were meaningless to the
Vienna Circle and either arose from logical mistakes or are interpretable as empirical
statements in the realm of science (Bryant, 1985).
The Vienna Circle also pursued the goal of a unified science, meaning a scientific system
where every legitimate, logical statement can be reduced to simpler concepts that relate
directly to an experience. This inspired a search for a so-called “symbolic language” that
eliminates the ambiguity of natural languages (Bryant, 1985).
1.10.1.1.1.2 Frankfurt School
The Frankfurt School, in contrast, critiqued positivism post-World War II. Horkheimer, a
main figure in the Frankfurt School, believed that the methods of inquiry used in the social
sciences could not imitate the scientific method used in the natural sciences.
This was because, Horkheimer argued, the ongoing search for universal laws - a logical and
mathematical prejudice - served to oversimplify and separate theory from how people
interact in the world.
Horkheimer posited that, “we should reconsider not merely the scientist, but the knowing
individual, in general” (Horkheimer, 1972).
The main arguments of Horkheimer and other members of the school involved:

1. The rejection of scientists: the Frankfurt school rejected the idea that that which
cannot be known scientifically cannot be known.

Horkheimer (1972) argued that this was because “science and its interpretation are
two different things,” presenting an argument that the equation of science with
knowledge rejects metascience, which is the only way through which science can be
critiqued and its limitations exposed.
Ironically, according to the Frankfurt School, positivists had wrongly claimed to have
located the essence of knowledge in science (Bryant, 1985).
2. The rejection of the positivist conception of science: according to what Keat calls “the
positivist conception of science,” science tries to explain and predict observable
phenomena by creating universal laws that apply in all regions of space and time
(Keat, 1981).

The Frankfurt School offers objections amounting to the idea that there are many
ways how phenomena are connected and thus many valid accounts of them, and that
it is wrong to reduce these accounts to one.
To the critical theorists countering positivists, there are structures and processes
limited by history that cause observable phenomena but whose existence can only be
inferred (Bryant, 1985).
3. The rejection of any theory-neutral observation language: the Frankfurt School
dismissed the Vienna Circle’s quest for a theory-neutral observation language for
science, saying that everyone who does science makes inquiries about the world in a
way that will always be in relation to their own ideas around understanding, the
presuppositions of their culture, and the theories they explicitly acknowledge
(Bryant, 1985).
4. The rejection of empiricism: to the Frankfurt School, what scientists consider to be
empirical is really the popular opinion of scientists at the time (Adorno, 2000).

Theory cannot completely account for theoretical findings because the testing of
theories involves deforming and breaking parts of the theory, and all empirical
research happens in a world where theory and reality are out of joint in a way where
people can choose to change the world so that it conforms better to what is possible
(Bryant, 1985).
 5. The rejection of any conception of the unity of the sciences: the Frankfurt School’s
critique of positivism also rejects the idea that all sciences operate in the same way
by arguing that there are differences between the physical objects studied by natural
sciences and the objectification of the mind studied by the social sciences (Bryant,
1985).
6. The rejection of an exclusively instrumental reason: the Frankfurt School further
critiques positivism by equivocating reason and instrumental reason. Thinking of
reason as just a calculation of the most appropriate means to pre given ends is
dangerous because it threatens to degenerate into the philosophy “might is right'
(Bryant, 1985).
7. The rejection of the dualism of facts and values: finally, the Frankfurt School rejects
that there is a dualism of facts and values. In this view, social science must have
values (Bryant, 1985).

1.10.1.1.1.3 Instrumental Positivism

Positivism has also taken on a number of forms in American Sociology. The most
distinctive of these, what Bryant (1985) calls “Instrumental Positivism,” came into
prominence in the late 1920s, before suffering more and more intense criticisms from the
1960s and 1970s onward.
In contrast to the French tradition positivism and that of the Vienna Circle, the American
instrumental positivism was influenced by what Hinkle calls the founding theory of
American sociology (2020) - that human behavior is evolutionary in behavior - and the
surveys and empirical work on social conditions that influenced sociology in its early
stages.
Instrumental positivism has several key characteristics (Bryant, 1985):
1. The preoccupation with the refinement of statistical techniques and
research instrumentation: American sociologists such as Giddings introduced
developments in statistics from other countries to American sociology as well as
creating new statistical techniques themselves (Bryant, 1985). 
1. The endorsement of a nominalist or individualistic conception of society:
according to Hinkle and Hinkle (Andrews, 1955), American sociology assumes that
the structure of all social groups is a consequence of the individuals in those groups
and that all social phenomena come from the motivations of these individuals.
Individuals, according to this view, are the main “objects” of sociological study
(Bryant, 1985).
1. The affinity with induction, verificationism, and incrementalism: because
American sociology was developed largely on questionnaires and surveys (Horowitz,
1964), instrumental positivism is inductive, verificationist, and incrementalist. This
means that facts about social life can be verified by correctly conducted research, and
that all verifiable facts add to the cumulative development of social science. Further,
in this view, laws about social behavior can be verified by experience, although later
thinkers, such as Hempel, have argued that inductively-obtained laws could also be
valid (Hempel, 1958). 
1. The linkage of a dichotomy of facts and values with a conception of
value-freedom: instrumental positivism was determined to be objective, in which
 came a determination to exclude value judgments from claims to knowledge
(Gouldner, 1962). To American instrumental positivists, not only were the values of
the people conducting sociology separable from sociological facts and research, but
this separation was essential to an objective science (Bryant, 1985). 
1. The prominence of team research and the multiplication of centers or
institutes of applied social research: finally, instrumental positivists tended to
assemble research teams in centers that often did contract research. This had the
consequence that those doing sociological research in America were those that could
afford to have an established and well-placed team (Bryant, 1985). 

1.11 CRITICISM AND CONTROVERSY

Implicit to these key positivist principles are several points of contention. For one,
positivism assumes that the methods that scientists use in the natural sciences can also be
applied to sociology.
This means that the subjective nature of human experience and behavior, to positivists,
does not create a barrier to treating human behavior as an object in the same way that, say,
a falling rock is an object in the natural world (Giddens, 1974).
However, there has also been a great amount of debate over how much sociologists can
generalize human behavior before it is no longer truly representative of human behavior,
and whether or not conclusions drawn from these so-called adaptations of human behavior
are positivist (Bryant, 1985).
As a consequence, scholars agree, there is little agreement as to what sociology is supposed
to adapt or adopt from the natural sciences when studying human behavior.
Positivism also presupposed that the end-result of sociological investigations is a set of
laws, like those that natural scientists have established, that can describe human behavior.
This assumption has been problematic in some sociologists’ view because while positivism
assumes that natural laws hold true regardless of time or location, social laws can be bound
by the historical period and culture where they were created.
Additionally, the assumption that sociology is technical in nature put forth by positivists
has generated controversy.
This assumption has the consequence that sociological knowledge is “instrumental” in
form and sociological research acquires findings which “do not carry any logically given
implications for practical policy for the pursuit of values” (Giddens, 1974).

Social geography as an applied branch of human geography,

the affinity and relationship with other social sciences
Social geography concentrates on divisions within society, initially
class, ethnicity, and, to a lesser extent, religion; however, more recently others have
been added, such as gender, sexual orientation, and age. Mapping where different
groups are concentrated is a common activity, especially within urban areas, as is
investigating the related inequalities and conflicts. Such mappings are complemented
by more-detailed studies of the role of place and space in social behaviour—as with
studies of the geography of crime and of educational provision—and in how mental
representations of those geographies are created and transmitted
Defining Applied geography:  “The means and methods for artificial improvement
of social conditions, on the part of man and society as conscious and
intelligent agents.” -. It utilizes “sociological knowledge and research
skills” to gain empirical knowledge. This knowledge is then used to inform
clients, decision-makers, and the public regarding various social
processes, problems, issues, and conditions to facilitate their informed
decision-making and improvement of life quality. Applied sociology
includes needs assessment, social indicators, evaluation and market
research, demographics, and also “directed sociological research” in
education, work, medicine, military, complex organizations, and mental
health- in its broadest sense.
1.12 ORIGIN OF APPLIED SOCIOLOGY 

Lester F. Ward was the first to bring the concept of applied sociology into the discipline of sociology. In
1883, Ward published a book titled, ‘Dynamic Sociology or Applied Social Science,’ wherein he defined the
ability of legislators and the government to bring an improvement in societal conditions by gaining
knowledge of the social forces, applying this knowledge, and becoming social scientists. Ward was strongly
opposed to the idea of radical socialist movements and utopian reform that led to abrupt changes. According
to Ward, applied sociology paved the pathway for the application of sociological principles by serving as a
guide for political and social action. (Perlstadt, 2007) Therefore, through his work, Ward aimed at
establishing the groundwork for the distinction between causal processes and the plausible interventions that
can be made in these processes to bring about social progress.

As stated by Hegel, in order to understand and grasp a concept, it is important to know what it is not.
(Marx’s Socialism) Therefore, the next section of the paper carries a differentiation between applied and
pure sociology to facilitate the reader’s understanding of this subject.

1.12.1 Differentiating Pure and Applied Sociology

The 1906 published book, ‘Applied Sociology’ by Lester F. Ward aims to bring out the differences between
these two.

In his book, he states that applied sociology aims to answer the question ‘what for?’ as opposed to the questions of
‘what, how and why?’ that are raised by pure sociology. While the area of focus for applied sociology deals with end,
purpose, and object, that of pure sociology deals with causes, p rinciples, and facts. It looks into the use of sociology
whereas pure sociology delves into the subject matter of sociology. (Ward, 1906)

Applied sociology deals with an artificial medium of “accelerating the spontaneous processes of nature”
whereas pure sociology deals with the “spontaneous development of society.” The former is practical
whereas the latter is theoretical. In matters pertaining to the point of view, in applied sociology, it is seen to
be subjective as compared to pure sociology, where it is seen as objective. The subject matter of applied
sociology is based on improvement whereas that of pure sociology is based on achievement. (Ward, 1906)

Applied sociology looks towards the future and pure sociology, on the other hand, is concerned with the past
and the present. (Ward, 1906)

To understand the differences between these two, many scholars have also turned to other social science
disciplines like psychology and borrowed ideas from their subject matter. Such is visible from the work of
Freeman and Rossi, who in 1984, published a work that stated six clear-cut differences between pure and
applied sociology. (Freeman & Rossi, 1984)

1.12.2 Boundaries

Since applied sociology has carried with itself a certain degree of ambiguity and elusiveness, scholars
believed it was essential to define the boundaries of applied sociology by listing and categorizing the work
done by applied sociologists. They believed that the work of applied sociologists cut across “all substantive
activities of the discipline” subsequently leading them to the only viable alternative of identification and
codification of activities characterizing applied sociology. (Freeman & Rossi, 1984)

Freeman and Rossi have listed out three activities that are carried out by applied sociologists, to prepare a
foundation for defining the boundaries of applied sociology. These are as follows-
The first activity is, ‘Mapping and Social Indicator Research.’ These studies are viewed as being descriptive in their
purpose and character. They allow for an estimation of the degree of existence of a phenomenon, its social and
physical space distribution, and plotting of its trends over a specified period. An example of this activity would
include an individual standing for office desiring to know the region-specific trends in his/her public support.
(Freeman & Rossi, 1984)

The second activity is, ‘Modelling social phenomena.’ This activity closely resembles “academic-oriented
research” and aims to develop models based on social processes. An example of this would be a
manufacturer wanting to know and understand the process of introduction of new products within the market
and the control they exercise over the market-share. (Freeman & Rossi, 1984)

The third activity is, ‘Evaluation of Purposive Action.’ This is defined as a “social science activity” that
utilizes social sciences’ research methods and theories to obtain the desired ends. Therefore, evaluation
includes within itself the study and analysis of the extent of its success, in terms of how it impacts the
intended beneficiaries, the organizational implementation plans of the evaluation, and the costs of achieving
these desired goals. Its application is widely seen in public sector activities and various social programs. An
example of this activity would be business firms evaluating their employee recruitment schemes and how
they are reaching the population segments. (Freeman & Rossi, 1984)

1.12.3 Apathy Towards Applied Sociology

The Journal of Applied Social Science by Andrew C. Cohen in 2011, aimed to explore the reason behind the
dwindling numbers of students enrolling and opting for applied sociology at the undergraduate level or the
“apathy towards applied sociology” Despite the plausible career options and comprehensive work
undertaken by applied sociologists, students seem to be potentially uninterested in applied sociology. The
paper concludes that students are unaware of the career opportunities possible in applied sociology due to
which it has failed to gain popularity in the ‘student market.’ The paper stated that sociology is “invisible to
the public eye” and lists out the steps that can be taken by applied sociologists to make the subject matter
more appealing to the students. It mentions the need for applied sociologists to promote a “unified image of
sociology’ that allows students to observe the work and field of applied sociology. (Cohen, 2011) Similar
concerns regarding the disregard towards applied sociology have been made by Watts, Short, and Schultz in
1983 where they explore the lack of interested students as the crisis of applied sociology. (Watts, Short &
Schultz, 1983)

1.12.4 Alternative Futures

It is said that applied sociology and its future are being modeled by the historical progression of sociology,
institutional contexts, and various social factors related to higher education. With the discussions regarding the
decreased number of students opting to study applied sociology, Peterson, Dukes, and Van Valey have listed out 5
alternative futures for this subfield that allow us to explore the possible future of applied sociology in the years to
come. These are- ‘down and out,’ ‘subfield status,’ ‘increasing focus,’ ‘ascension of applied sociology,’ and ‘leaving
home.’ (Peterson, Dukes & Van Valey, 2008)

‘Down and out’ is considered to be the least optimistic future possibility for applied sociology. Under this,
as sociology’s fate becomes more inextricably linked with that of academic departments and universities.
Increasing pressures on finances might impact the higher education curriculum leading to the possibility of
reducing and/or removing applied sociology from the larger field of sociology. (Peterson, Dukes & Van
Valey, 2008)

‘Subfield status’ is considered to be an alternate possibility for the increasing financial pressures on
individuals and academic institutions. Though it seems highly unlikely, if the situation regarding the
finances is dealt with, then applied sociology can emerge as a subfield of sociology and can be given as
much importance as the fields of family, medical sociology, and social psychology. (Peterson, Dukes & Van
Valey, 2008)

‘Increasing focus’ as an alternate future possibility is based on recent American education trends that can be seen to
increasingly emphasize the importance and relevance of applied sociology. According to Perlstadt, the demand for
applied research is unlikely to diminish, especially in the case of the federal government. However, it has been noted
that for such a situation to unfold, significant changes in the academic culture will be required to sustain an
increased focus towards applied sociology. (Peterson, Dukes & Van Valey, 2008)

‘Ascension of Applied Sociology’ deals with the possibility of applied sociology becoming the “dominant
force” within the discipline of sociology. However, this seems to be quite an idealistic possibility since the
ascension of applied sociology would require overcoming the resistance stemming from the sociological
elite. This is substantiated by the American Sociological Meeting in 2004, wherein themes pertaining to
‘pure sociology’ were quite apparent. However, those related to applied sociology were neither being
discussed nor being publicly recognized. (Peterson, Dukes & Van Valey, 2008)

‘Leaving Home’ focuses on new trends within higher education that could lead to a possible amalgamation
of applied sociology and various other applied fields to create an “interdisciplinary applied social sciences”
field. (Peterson, Dukes & Van Valey, 2008)

1.12.5 Applied Sociology and its standing in the 21st century.

Despite the multiple possibilities that have been stated regarding the future of applied sociology, in the 21st
century, one can acknowledge that this field of sociology is “very resilient.” The term itself has withstood
years of vague definitions and the content of applied sociology has been attempted to either be ignored or
replaced. One can conclude that in an increasingly individualistic, neo-liberal society that focuses on self-
actualization and personal liberty, a discipline like sociology has difficulty in expanding its base and
becoming widely acclaimed. However, “the heart of applied sociology is social research.”- this phrase
reminds us of every aspect that is encompassed within applied sociology, all the way from its definitions to
its objectives. Therefore, as long as the state and relevant decision-makers are inclined towards discovery
and understanding of social facts and as long as individuals are trained to provide these social facts, applied
sociology will expand and flourish. (Perlstadt, 2007)