Sociology is a young science . As soon as one reads who its authors are considered “classics”, one realizes that the oldest ones are from the beginning of the 19th century.

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

I am talking about questions such as whether or not statistical techniques can serve to satisfactorily explain social phenomena; whether it is “sensible” to use theories of behaviour instead of “structural” theories; or whether sociology can or will be considered a science like any other, or on the contrary is destined always to be relegated to the background, for whatever reason.

If we generalize to the areas to which these questions belong, we will see that their answer will influence a good part of how we do research afterwards: what techniques and types of models should we use to explain properly? Are individuals important in constituting and explaining social phenomena, as well as their different states? Due to the complexity of these phenomena, should we relegate ourselves to not possessing the same explanatory capacity as other sciences? It is difficult for physics or biology to pose questions of this kind at this stage, at least as I have formulated them. These constant discussions mean that the classifications I use here may change, or in fact are already changing .

Three approaches to sociology

I am going to use three different criteria useful to give a general “image” of the discipline from different angles: sociology according to the methodology it uses; according to the social phenomenon it refers to; and according to the theoretical conception one has of “social phenomenon”.

For reasons of space, I do not focus on explaining each specific typology in depth. For this reason, at the end of the article I propose references that may allow anyone interested to know a little more.

1. Types of sociology by their methodology

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

1.1. On qualitative techniques

The qualitative techniques are designed to study everything that requires data that are very difficult to quantify and that are at least epistemologically subjective. We are talking about ideas, perceptions, reasons, and signs that possess meaning. Qualitative techniques are often used to explore topics for which there is little data, in order to address future research with quantitative techniques.

In fact, this type of technique is usually linked to research that is interested in studying the phenomenology of the subjects with respect to a social fact . For example, we may ask ourselves how identity is lived and understood in a particular social group. In-depth interviews, discussion groups and ethnography all represent techniques that have normally been linked to this field. Another qualitative technique widely used in history is, for example, historical narrative.

In general, the sample of individuals from these techniques is usually much smaller than that of quantitative techniques , as they follow different logics. For example, in the case of qualitative techniques, one of the key objectives is to reach a discourse saturation, a point where new interviews do not provide more relevant data than those already provided so far. In a statistical technique, on the other hand, the result of not reaching a certain number of necessary samples means, almost, the disuse of any statistical technique.

1.2. On quantitative techniques

Within quantitative techniques we can distinguish between two main fields: statistics and 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 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 at the same time allowing the study of associations between different variables, and applying certain techniques in order to predict.

Thanks to the increasingly widespread use of Big Data and Machine Learning , statistical techniques have had some kind of revitalization. This particular field is undergoing a “revolution”, both within and outside of academia, from which the social sciences hope to be able to deal with enormous quantities of data that will make it possible to better describe social phenomena.

The other major 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 us to study the relationships between communities by applying differential equation models that model aggregate behaviour along with other aggregates. Another technique, that of Multi-Agent Simulation Models, makes it possible to program artificial individuals who, by following rules, generate the social phenomenon to be studied from a modeling that takes into account the individuals, their essential properties and rules, and the environment, without the need to introduce differential equations.

For this reason it is considered that this type of simulation techniques, despite being quite different , allow better study of complex systems (such as social phenomena) (Wilensky, U.: 2015). Another simulation technique widely used in demography, for example, is that of microsimulation.

It is important to add to this point that both the Big Data revolution and the application of simulation techniques, as they serve to study social systems, are now known as “Computational Social Science” (e.g. 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 nineteenth century.

    • .

  • Sociology of education . For example: the study of social inequalities of income 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 the studies of social mobility and social classes (Wright, E.: 1979); the studies of fiscal behaviour (Noguera, J. et al.: 2014); the studies of social segregation (Schelling, T.: 1971); the studies of the family (Flaqué, Ll.: 2010); the studies of public policies and the Welfare State (Andersen, G.-E.: 1990); studies of social influence (Watts, D.: 2009); studies of organizations (Hedström, P. & Wennberg, K.: 2016); studies of social networks (Snijders, T. et al.: 2007); etc.

While some areas of study are well defined, the borderline for many others clearly touches on 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 applies, for example, when applying the study of social networks to fields such as the sociology of work.

Finally, it should be noted that while sociology has been rather isolated throughout the 20th century, the boundaries separating it from other social sciences, from economics to anthropology and always bordering on psychology, are increasingly blurred, with interdisciplinary collaboration becoming the norm rather than the exception.

3. Types of sociology by theoretical scope of the concept “social phenomenon”

One of the fields where sociologists disagree most strongly with each other is that which defines and interprets what social phenomena are and what they cause, as well as what their possible effects on societies are.

In simple terms, 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 according to the moment and the person who has used it, in sociology this term is generally understood in the sense of “structures” of society that exist by themselves beyond the individual and that affect him causally in a direct way, normally without him being aware of their effect.

This vision corresponds to the proposal of Émile Durkheim, one of the classics of the discipline, and which can be summarized as “the whole is more than the sum of its parts”, a principle that can also be found in Gestalt psychology. This vision, then, considers that social phenomena exist, in some way, beyond the individuals themselves, and their scope of action on them is absolute and direct. That is why this perspective has been called “holistic”. This vision of social phenomena, very summarized here, has been the most popular in the last century, and currently continues to be the most widespread within the discipline.

3.2. Constructionism

The constructionist vision is also one of the most widespread in the discipline. Although constructionist views 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, these do not have to do so in the same way in other societies . For example, European society may have a certain conception of what art is, of what is good or bad, of what the role of the state is, and so on, and Indian society may have a completely different one. Which is the true one, then? Both and neither.

In this sense, constructionism would say that many of the things that seem as solid as nature actually depend on human acceptance. The most extreme position of this current, which we could call constructivism (Searle, J.: 1995), would say that everything is a social construction as long as it is understood and conceptualized by the word (which is, of course, something created by and for human beings). In that sense, things like science, or the ideas of veracity and certainty, would also be social constructions, which would imply that they depend only and exclusively on the human being.

3.3. Analytical sociology

The analytical position, for its part, besides 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 form the causes of the emergence of social phenomena.

In fact, this perspective places special emphasis on uncovering the causal mechanisms that generate social phenomena. That is, the concrete actions of individuals that, at the macro level, generate the phenomenon we wish to explain. It is common to read that this position has the interest of offering black-box free explanations, or explanations that detail the exact processes from which the social phenomena we see occur.

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 which social phenomena, understood (again) as complex systems, can be better studied.

As a final point, we would like to say that analytical sociology wishes to advance sociology by making it as similar as possible to the other sciences with regard to certain aspects of the research process (such as promoting the use of models and clearly betting on mathematical-formal expression or, failing that, computational expression).

The Relative of the Boundaries between Types of Sociology

A note is needed here: it should be noted that, although the differences between the various domains are quite clear and evident, and although individuals within each group generally share certain basic premises, they are not totally homogeneous within themselves .

For example, in the structuralist positions there are clearly people in favour 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 and the individual phenomenon).

To go beyond

A reference author who has tried to classify the social sciences based on different criteria is Andrew Abbot, in Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences .The book is written in a clear and pedagogical style, and gives an idea not only of sociology and its different types, but also of the other social sciences. Very useful for introducing 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 they focus on; (3) and according to the theoretical position that frames them in a position within the discipline. We could say that points (1) and (2) are consistent with other sciences. Point (3), however, seems to be the result of the early age of the discipline. We are talking about the fact 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 impression that neither is right and that, in short, the sensation of “progress” within the discipline is scarce or null.

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

Bibliographic references:

  • Flaquer, Ll.: “Las políticas familiares en España en el marco de la Unión Europea” in Lerner, S. & Melgar, L.: Families in the 21st Century: Diverse Realities and Public Policies. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 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 behaviour” in Montfort, K. et al.: Longitudinal models in the behavioural 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.