(a) What are the shortfalls of positivist philosophy that gave rise to the non-positivist methods of studying social reality ?…

Shortfalls of Positivist Philosophy and the Rise of Non-Positivist Methods

Positivist sociology, pioneered by Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim, sought to model the study of society on the natural sciences by treating "social facts as things" through quantitative measurement, statistical determinism, and an insistence on value-neutrality. However, this orthodoxy revealed severe epistemological shortfalls. By reifying social structures, positivism reduced human actors to passive recipients of external structural forces, completely ignoring human agency, internal consciousness, and the subjective meanings individuals attach to their actions. Furthermore, post-positivist philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend demonstrated that even natural science is not purely objective or value-free, undermining positivism’s foundational claim of detached neutrality.

These limitations catalyzed non-positivist traditions. Max Weber introduced interpretivism (Verstehen), arguing that sociology must comprehend the subjective motives and cultural significance of social action. Alfred Schutz developed phenomenological sociology, shifting inquiry toward the intersubjective construction of the everyday "lifeworld" (Lebenswelt) and multiple social realities. Concurrently, the Frankfurt School's critical theory (Adorno, Habermas) critiqued positivism as an instrument of technocratic domination that legitimizes the status quo, demanding instead an emancipatory, reflexive science. Consequently, non-positivist methodologies established qualitative techniques—such as participant observation, in-depth interviews, and hermeneutics—as indispensable for capturing reflexivity and the negotiated nature of social life.

Critical Examination of Anomie: Durkheim and Merton

Émile Durkheim conceptualized anomie as a state of normlessness resulting from the deregulation of individual desires. In The Division of Labour in Society and Suicide, he argued that during rapid economic transitions from mechanical to organic solidarity, the collective conscience weakens before new regulatory norms crystallize. Because human passions are inherently limitless, the breakdown of moral regulation plunges individuals into chronic dissatisfaction, leading to pathologies such as anomic suicide. Durkheim’s formulation is an ontological, macro-moral critique: anomie represents an inadequate societal control over biological and psychological impulses.

Robert K. Merton transformed anomie from a moral pathology into a middle-range structural strain theory in Social Structure and Anomie. Departing from Durkheim’s emphasis on insatiable desires, Merton argued that desires are culturally induced. Anomie emerges from an acute disjunction between culturally defined goals (such as the American Dream of monetary success) and the socially structured, institutionalized means available to achieve them. Merton mapped five individual adaptations to this strain based on acceptance or rejection of goals and means: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.

Critically, while Durkheim viewed anomie as a temporary, transitional breakdown curable through occupational corporatism—reflecting a conservative optimism—Merton revealed that anomie is a permanent, institutionalized contradiction embedded in unequal capitalist social structures. Merton’s innovation lies in demonstrating how society itself generates deviance. However, both thinkers remain tethered to functionalist assumptions: Durkheim overstates the necessity of moral consensus, while Merton presupposes a universal internalization of dominant cultural goals, underestimating subcultural autonomy, differential value systems, and the role of power in defining deviance. Ultimately, Merton provides a superior sociological framework by locating anomie in structural stratification rather than in a deficit of moral hygiene.

Minimizing Researcher Influence in Focus Group Discussions

To safeguard data integrity in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), researchers must implement systematic procedural and reflexivity controls:

First, moderator neutrality must be enforced through specialized training to prevent leading questions, confirmatory verbal cues, or biasing body language. The facilitator should adhere to a pre-tested, semi-structured discussion guide featuring neutral, open-ended prompts.

Second, group composition requires deliberate stratification; balancing intra-group homogeneity (to ensure participants feel safe to speak without intimidation) with inter-group heterogeneity captures diverse viewpoints while curbing social desirability bias and groupthink.

Third, separating the roles of moderation and data recording by utilizing independent third-party note-takers and multi-angle audio-visual recording minimizes selective observational filtering.

Finally, post-collection safeguards—including reflexive journaling to audit the researcher's own subjectivities, member-checking (returning summary transcripts to participants to verify accurate interpretation), and methodological triangulation with participant observation or structured surveys—ensure that findings reflect participant realities rather than researcher imposition.