Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences

The article begins with a brief overview of how the relationship between researcher and object of study has been approached in social sciences. The goal is to reflect further on the process of this study and to raise two essential questions: what kind of relationship develops between the researcher and the social actor? And what kind of participation is required from the social actor? To answer these questions the article proposes identifying four different models of participation, the effects of which are analyzed by rediscovering all the practices that include a particular involvement of the social actor in the research process.

Download Full-text

Synergetic scientism and social picture of the world

Complexity Mind Postnonclassic ◽

10.12737/3395 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 29-37 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Карпин ◽

Vladimir Karpin

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Fundamental Problem ◽

Social Systems ◽

Research Field ◽

Nonequilibrium Systems ◽

Evolutionary Mechanisms ◽

Social Sciences And Humanities ◽

The Social ◽

The World ◽

Special Scientific

The paper discusses possible ways of solving the fundamental problem of the community of scientific knowledge – the integration of natural and social sciences and humanities. Attempts to find common patterns of special scientific pictures of the world, in particular, biological and social, have led to a discussion of an interdisciplinary science as sociobiology which attempts to explain the social behavior of living beings by set of certain advantage generated in the course of evolution. Research field of sociobiology intersects with the study of evolutionary theory, zoology, genetics and other disciplines. In the field of social sciences it is close to evolutionary psychology exploring the behavior theory. Attempts to explain such behaviors as altruism, aggression are made using evolutionary mechanisms. Today we are witnessing the birth of the third, synergetic paradigm based on emerging, formation, development and change (evolution) of complex open nonlinear nonequilibrium systems. The theory of self-organization claims to interdisciplinarity and universality, including in the field of creation of the modern social picture of the world. The central problem under the consideration is the fact that synergy deals with the collective, mass processes, with complex social systems and is the most rational key to this problem solving.

Download Full-text

Can Law Learn from Social Science?

Israel Law Review ◽

10.1017/s0021223700012188 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 35 (2-3) ◽

pp. 205-224 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

David Nelken

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Social Science ◽

Fundamental Problem ◽

Social Scientists ◽

Legal Rules ◽

Political Critique ◽

The Social ◽

Social Scientific ◽

The Relationship ◽

Styles Of Reasoning

In this paper I shall be discussing a fundamental problem in the relationship between law and the social sciences. Many social scientists have pointed out that the “pull of the policy audience” in legislative and administrative exercises and the confines of practical decision-making in legal settings can compromise the proper development of academic social science and blunt the edge of political critique. The danger is real enough. But they have given insufficient attention to the opposite concern which will be my topic in this article. Here the charge is that the introduction of social scientific styles of reasoning can have ill effects for legal practice by threatening the integrity of legal processes and the values they embody. How can social scientists be sure that they have properly understood the nature of law or the meaning and point of the legal rules, procedures, and institutions which they attempt to analyze and seek to improve? What warrant can they have that social scientific interpretation, at any level, does not end up creating law in its own image? If this is a genuine risk, what implications follow for the way law should learn from social science? I shall argue that there are no easy answers to these questions even, or especially, where law apparently welcomes contributions from social science.

Download Full-text

Ontological Investigations of a Pragmatic Kind? A Reply to Lauer

Philosophy of the Social Sciences ◽

10.1177/0048393120916134 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 51 (1) ◽

pp. 3-12

Author(s):

Simon Lohse

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Fundamental Problem ◽

Social Ontology ◽

Scientific Methodology ◽

The Social ◽

Social Scientific

This article is a reply to Richard Lauer’s “Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?” and an attempt to contribute to the meta-social ontological discourse more broadly. In the first part I will give a rough sketch of Lauer’s general project and confront his pragmatist approach with a fundamental problem. The second part of my reply will provide a solution for this problem rooted in a philosophy of the social sciences in practice.

Download Full-text

Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences

10.1017/cbo9780511801938 ◽

2008 ◽

Cited By ~ 88

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

The Social

Download Full-text

What Can We Learn From Factorial Surveys About Human Behavior?

Methodology ◽

10.1027/1614-2241/a000161 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 19-30 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Knut Petzold ◽

Tobias Wolbring

Keyword(s):

Social Sciences ◽

Behavioral Intentions ◽

Actual Behavior ◽

Full Time ◽

Factorial Survey ◽

Survey Experiment ◽

Intended Behavior ◽

The Social ◽

Survey Experiments ◽

High Level

Abstract. Factorial survey experiments are increasingly used in the social sciences to investigate behavioral intentions. The measurement of self-reported behavioral intentions with factorial survey experiments frequently assumes that the determinants of intended behavior affect actual behavior in a similar way. We critically investigate this fundamental assumption using the misdirected email technique. Student participants of a survey were randomly assigned to a field experiment or a survey experiment. The email informs the recipient about the reception of a scholarship with varying stakes (full-time vs. book) and recipient’s names (German vs. Arabic). In the survey experiment, respondents saw an image of the same email. This validation design ensured a high level of correspondence between units, settings, and treatments across both studies. Results reveal that while the frequencies of self-reported intentions and actual behavior deviate, treatments show similar relative effects. Hence, although further research on this topic is needed, this study suggests that determinants of behavior might be inferred from behavioral intentions measured with survey experiments.

Download Full-text