Social Science Biases and Collective Knowledge

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Matt Grossmann
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Collective Knowledge ◽  
Science Knowledge ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Social Science Knowledge ◽  
Natural Scientists ◽  
Do So

Understanding, investigating, and adapting to the biases inherent in social science research is the best path toward accumulating and advancing social science knowledge. Social science faces many categories of bias, from those stemming from unrepresentative researcher demographics to those based on research practices and incentives. Each has implications for research practices, but none makes social science impossible. Scholars face inherent challenges larger than those of natural scientists, with more disagreement on the most important biases to address and the kinds of research necessary to do so. But there are important advances in scholars’ self-understanding that can serve as the basis for our future progress.

scholarly journals Post Qualitative Inquiry in an Ontology of Immanence

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. St. Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
History Of

Because post qualitative inquiry uses an ontology of immanence from poststructuralism as well as transcendental empiricism, it cannot be a social science research methodology with preexisting research methods and research practices a researcher can apply. In fact, it is methodology-free and so refuses the demands of “application.” Recommendations for those interested in post qualitative inquiry include putting methodology aside and, instead, reading widely across philosophy, social theories, and the history of science and social science to find concepts that reorient thinking. Post qualitative inquiry encourages concrete, practical experimentation and the creation of the not yet instead of the repetition of what is.

scholarly journals Kant on the Experience of Passivity

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Motohide Saji
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Human Development ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Initial Activity ◽  
Early Human Development ◽  
And Control ◽  
Early Human ◽  
Do So

<p><em>This article reconstructs Kant’s thought on early human development and its effect throughout one’s life in his empirical, anthropological work. To do so, I examine Kant’s treatment of three aspects of the early human development chronologically. Kant’s argument concerns processes that one goes through before becoming an adult, which take place beyond one’s control, which form the basis for one’s adult self, and which affect one throughout one’s life. One’s experience of these three aspects can be called the experience of passivity. First, while an infant, one is subject to the drive and inability to coordinate and control one’s bodily motion, to the drive to communicate, and to the activity of imitation. </em><em>Second, </em><em>one is compelled to begin reasoning rather than actively beginning the exercise of reason. The initial activity of reason suddenly has already taken place in one beyond one’s control in such a way that one cannot choose whether to begin to exercise the faculty of reason in the first place. Third, one is affected by otherness in the formation and development of one’s self. Kant’s thought thus reconstructed proves to be consistent with what recent empirical research demonstrates. The present analysis ends with questions and implications for social science research.</em></p>

How Social Science Got Better

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Grossmann
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Sociology Of Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Public Scholarship ◽  
Incentive Structures ◽  
Self Knowledge ◽  
Collective Deliberation

Social science research is facing mounting criticism, as canonical studies fail to replicate, questionable research practices abound, and researcher social and political biases come under fire. Far from being in crisis, however, social science is undergoing an unparalleled renaissance of ever-broader and deeper understanding and application—made possible by close attention to criticism of our biases and open public engagement. Wars between scientists and their humanist critics, methodological disputes over statistical practice and qualitative research, and disciplinary battles over grand theories of human nature have all quietly died down as new generations of scholars have integrated the insights of multiple sides. Rather than deny that researcher biases affect results, scholars now closely analyze how our racial, gender, geographic, methodological, political, and ideological differences impact our research questions; how the incentives of academia influence our research practices; and how universal human desires to avoid uncomfortable truths and easily solve problems affect our conclusions. To be sure, misaligned incentive structures remain, but a messy, collective deliberation across the research community is boosting self-knowledge and improving practice. Ours is an unprecedented age of theoretical diversity, open and connected data, and public scholarship. How Social Science Got Better documents and explains recent transformations, crediting both internal and public critics for strengthening social science. Applying insights from the philosophy, history, and sociology of science and providing new data on trends in social science research and scholarly views, it demonstrates that social science has never been more relevant, rigorous, or self-reflective.

scholarly journals Reporting all results efficiently: A RARE proposal to open up the file drawer

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (52) ◽  
pp. e2106178118
Author(s):  
David D. Laitin ◽  
Edward Miguel ◽  
Ala’ Alrababa’h ◽  
Aleksandar Bogdanoski ◽  
Sean Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Social ◽  
Empirical Social Science ◽  
Peer Reviewers

While the social sciences have made impressive progress in adopting transparent research practices that facilitate verification, replication, and reuse of materials, the problem of publication bias persists. Bias on the part of peer reviewers and journal editors, as well as the use of outdated research practices by authors, continues to skew literature toward statistically significant effects, many of which may be false positives. To mitigate this bias, we propose a framework to enable authors to report all results efficiently (RARE), with an initial focus on experimental and other prospective empirical social science research that utilizes public study registries. This framework depicts an integrated system that leverages the capacities of existing infrastructure in the form of public registries, institutional review boards, journals, and granting agencies, as well as investigators themselves, to efficiently incentivize full reporting and thereby, improve confidence in social science findings. In addition to increasing access to the results of scientific endeavors, a well-coordinated research ecosystem can prevent scholars from wasting time investigating the same questions in ways that have not worked in the past and reduce wasted funds on the part of granting agencies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document