The first, and still more likely, is that we will split into two scientific disciplines, in a way similar to what happened in the last century with, for example, philosophy and psycholog. This is a long evolutionary process that has already been underway for three, perhaps four decades.

One of these new disciplines focuses on the systematic study of social phenomena. From this perspective, and following John Goldthorpe, sociology is primarily a “population science”—a science that systematically investigates group-level phenomena among humans. Its goal is to identify generalizable facts about social phenomena, their changes, and the explanations for those changes. The methods are often quantitative, but due to the rapid development of artificial intelligence, our traditional boundary between qualitative and quantitative research will become irrelevant.

Because societies, labor markets, and other disciplines have use for this kind of knowledge, this research field will continue to attract funding, offer researchers sustainable careers, and evolve as a science. It can serve as a cornerstone for large research centers focused on high-level science, such as our own INVEST at University of Turku, Stockholm’s SOFI, or Berlin’s WZB.

The other discipline focuses on the close observation of social micro-phenomena. It is normative, descriptive, and even performative in nature. It has a strong internal identity, based on canonized texts and their authorized interpreters. It leans on strong preconceptions and sets strict boundaries on what must not be studied. It is an empirical research field, like the first described field, typically using qualitative methods. However, more important than the method type is that it relies on the human senses’ capacity to observe and, for that reason, deliberately avoids the use of new technologies in its research. It is not committed to the principles of the scientific method. The success of this discipline depends on its excitement value and often journalistic novelty of the information it produces. Even if the research area offers limited value for policymaking, its leading scholars are likely to succeed through individual or small-group research grants. And while it may not provide students with specific skills for the labor market, it is likely a popular field of study.

The second possible future is stagnation. This scenario could come to pass if the rapid development of artificial intelligence leads to a significant drop in demand for both of the new disciplines I have described. From the perspective of both, sociology is still primarily an empirical field. But already now, AI can analyze tables, large volumes of text, and images more accurately and quickly than humans—and it can produce more balanced summaries and interpretations than most of us. This may force sociology to remain unified for the simple reason that the field is shrinking rapidly, and there is no longer demand in the labor market for the current number of sociologists.

The first scenario feels a bit frightening, especially since I myself have long defended unified sociology. Still, I now find the future of a “two sociologies” model more hopeful. In this case, we are talking about the natural evolution of science—one that would allow sociology, as we currently understand it, to thrive in an even more diverse form.

The latter scenario, by contrast, would mean not only the stagnation of sociology but the decline of the social sciences as a whole. And that would be a pity.

This essay is based on a talk I gave at the 2025 Westermarck Society’s Sociology Days panel, March 2025.