The concept of 'objectivity' in sociological research is indeed a complex and often debated idea, and whether it is 'over-hyped' depends on one's epistemological stance. In its strictest sense, objectivity implies a value-free, unbiased, and detached observation of social phenomena, akin to the natural sciences. Proponents argue that without striving for objectivity, sociological findings risk becoming mere subjective opinions, lacking scientific rigor and generalizability. However, many sociologists contend that complete objectivity is an unattainable ideal in social research due to the inherent subjectivity of human experience, the researcher's own values and biases, and the interactive nature of social inquiry. From this perspective, an overemphasis on strict objectivity can be seen as 'over-hyped,' potentially leading to a narrow understanding of social reality and neglecting the rich, nuanced meanings that individuals ascribe to their actions and interactions.

This leads to the discussion of non-positivist methods, which emerged as a critique of the positivist pursuit of objectivity. Non-positivist approaches, often rooted in interpretivism, phenomenology, and critical theory, prioritize understanding social phenomena from the perspective of the actors involved, focusing on meaning, interpretation, and context. These methods include qualitative techniques such as in-depth interviews, participant observation, ethnography, and discourse analysis.

Merits of Non-Positivist Methods:

1. Depth and Richness: They provide a deep, nuanced understanding of social phenomena, capturing the complexities of human experience, motivations, and meanings that quantitative, objective methods might miss.
2. Contextual Understanding: Non-positivist methods excel at placing social actions within their specific cultural, historical, and social contexts, offering a holistic view.
3. Voice to Marginalized Groups: They allow researchers to explore the perspectives of individuals and groups whose experiences might be overlooked or misrepresented by more generalized, 'objective' studies.
4. Exploratory Power: They are particularly useful for exploring new or under-researched areas, generating hypotheses, and developing new theoretical insights.
5. Reflexivity: Non-positivist researchers often embrace reflexivity, acknowledging their own positionality and biases, which can lead to a more transparent and ethically informed research process.

Demerits of Non-Positivist Methods:

1. Subjectivity and Bias: The reliance on interpretation and the researcher's involvement can introduce subjectivity, making it challenging to ensure the findings are not unduly influenced by the researcher's own perspectives.
2. Limited Generalizability: Findings from small-scale, in-depth studies may not be easily generalizable to larger populations or different contexts, raising questions about external validity.
3. Replicability Challenges: The unique, context-dependent nature of qualitative data and the interpretive process can make it difficult for other researchers to replicate the study and arrive at the same conclusions.
4. Time and Resource Intensive: Non-positivist methods, especially ethnography and long-term participant observation, can be very time-consuming and resource-intensive.
5. Measurement Issues: The lack of standardized measures can make it difficult to compare findings across different studies or to quantify social phenomena in a systematic way.

In conclusion, while the ideal of absolute objectivity might be 'over-hyped' in sociology, the pursuit of rigor, transparency, and minimizing bias remains crucial. Non-positivist methods offer invaluable tools for understanding the subjective dimensions of social life, complementing rather than replacing the insights gained from more quantitative, 'objective' approaches. A balanced sociological inquiry often benefits from methodological pluralism, combining different approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of social reality.