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

(a) Shortfalls of positivism and the rise of non-positivist methods Positivism (Comte; Durkheim's rule to treat social facts as things) seeks law-like, value-free and quantifiable explanation on the model of natural science. Its main shortfalls were:

• It ignores subjective meaning. Social action is meaningful, so behaviour cannot be understood from outside alone. Weber's Verstehen (interpretive understanding of motives) and symbolic interactionism (Mead, Blumer) make meanings arising in interaction central.
• It reifies structure and treats people as products of social facts. Garfinkel's ethnomethodology criticises this "cultural dope" picture and shows that actors actively produce social order through everyday methods.
• It overlooks the constructed nature of reality. Schutz's phenomenology (lifeworld, typifications) and Berger and Luckmann (The Social Construction of Reality, 1966) show that social "facts" are made and sustained by shared meanings.
• Its claim of value-neutrality and a detached observer is doubtful. Observation is theory-laden (Kuhn), and the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Habermas) argued that positivism accepts the existing order as given and serves technical control instead of critique and emancipation.
• Numerical data conceal how categories are produced. Douglas (1967) and Atkinson (1978) showed that suicide statistics, Durkheim's key evidence, are the outcome of officials' interpretations.
• People reflect on sociological knowledge and change their conduct in response (Giddens' "double hermeneutic"), so stable universal laws are unlikely; culture and history make social phenomena unique rather than law-governed (the idiographic argument).

These limits gave rise to non-positivist methods: participant observation, ethnography, in-depth and life-history interviews, case studies, hermeneutic reading of texts, conversation analysis and grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). They give depth, context and the insider's view, but are criticised for subjectivity, limited generalisability and difficulty of replication, which is why mixed methods and triangulation are now common.

(b) Durkheim and Merton on anomie Durkheim introduced anomie in The Division of Labour in Society (1893) and developed it in Suicide (1897). It is a condition of deregulation: the collective conscience fails to limit individual desires during rapid change, sudden prosperity or crisis, or when an abnormal division of labour leaves functions uncoordinated by shared rules. Human wants are unlimited, so only society can set limits; without them people feel endless dissatisfaction, and anomic suicide rises in booms as well as slumps. His remedy was moral regulation through occupational groups (preface to the second edition, 1902).

Merton, in "Social Structure and Anomie" (American Sociological Review, 1938; later Social Theory and Social Structure), located anomie in a strain between culturally prescribed goals, such as success in the American Dream, and the unequally distributed, institutionalised means of reaching them. Anomie arises when culture over-stresses goals and the structure does not provide legitimate means. Individuals adapt through conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism or rebellion, according to whether they accept or reject goals and means. Deviance is therefore socially produced, and lower-class positions face the greatest strain.

Critical examination:

• Both reject biological or purely individual explanations. Merton moves anomie from weak moral regulation to the opportunity structure and extends it from suicide to crime and deviance generally.
• Durkheim's concept is ambiguous, as its meaning differs between his two books. He assumes moral consensus and an organic analogy, and his aggregate statistics invite the ecological-fallacy and official-statistics objections (Douglas, Atkinson).
• Merton assumes a shared success goal and does not ask who defines goals and laws. He explains white-collar crime and non-utilitarian delinquency (Cohen, 1955) poorly and ignores group processes; Cloward and Ohlin (1960) added that illegitimate opportunities are also unequally distributed.
• Durkheim better explains disorder in periods of rapid change, while Merton better explains how a stable but unequal order generates deviance.

(c) Minimising researcher influence in focus group discussions The moderator's words, status and manner can steer what participants say. Measures:

• Use a pre-tested, semi-structured guide with neutral, open-ended questions, so that wording does not suggest the "right" answer.
• Train the moderator to be non-directive: no approving nods, no opinions, neutral probes, and equal attention to all members.
• Match moderator and group on language, gender and, where relevant, caste or status, and keep officials, employers and project staff out of the room.
• Form homogeneous groups so that power differences do not silence members, and draw in quieter speakers.
• Separate roles: a co-moderator or note-taker records non-verbal cues, and audio recording with verbatim transcription prevents selective memory.
• Run several groups and have two analysts code independently.
• Keep a reflexive field diary stating the researcher's position, and check findings with participants (member checking) or other methods (triangulation).