Alright, let’s stretch this out beautifully. I’ll expand Alvesson’s Low vs High Ambiguity issues and the Debate on Facts in Sociology by bringing in the big guns: Kuhn, Feyerabend, Popper, Giddens, Bourdieu, Berger & Luckmann, Foucault, and more.

Still keeping everything Notion-friendly and UPSC-grade, but in a tone that feels like we’re having a chill but sharp conversation.

Mats Alvesson and the Problem of Ambiguity

Alvesson’s idea works like a doorway into a bigger argument in sociology:

Can we ever study society with the clarity of the natural sciences?

Or are we doomed to deal with “messy facts” forever?

Here’s how other thinkers slot into this debate:

Thomas Kuhn → Paradigms Shape Facts

Kuhn says scientific facts are not neutral.

Every discipline works inside a “paradigm”, and what counts as a fact is whatever fits that paradigm.

In sociology, which has multiple paradigms (Marxist, Functionalist, Feminist, Symbolic Interactionist), the ambiguity is even higher.

So Alvesson’s “high ambiguity issues” reflect the absence of a single paradigm.

Karl Popper → No Final Facts, Only Falsifiable Claims

Popper argues that scientific knowledge grows through falsification, not verification.

But in sociology, most statements can’t be decisively falsified because:

• Data is interpretive
• Variables are intertwined