Probleme der Wissenschaftstheorie in der Methodenlehre empirischer Sozialforschung / Problems of the theory of science in the methodology of social research

1975 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil Walter-Busch
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Empirical Measures ◽  
Natural Laws ◽  
Self Image ◽  
The Social ◽  
Empirical Generalizations

AbstractMutual understanding between the theorists of science and social research workersis usually not very good. By showing up some theoretically relevant problems in the methodology of social research, this article tries to bridge the unfortunate gap between the two fields of investigation. Some difficulties of planning and executing social research are described at first (section 3). Then, two central problems of empirical investigations in the social sciences are analyzed: the unavoidable one-sidedness of all empirical measures for the historically changing and always ambigous meaning of social concepts (section 4); and the barriers that obstruct the winning of law-like statements that are both generally valid and substantial. The main strategies for winning such statements seem to have serious disadvantages (section 6). But the deficiency of substantial social laws does not mean that the social sciences are not worth being further developed in a systematic way. Certainly, the explanatory power of all known generalizations in the social sciences is very restricted and cannot at all be compared with the explanatory power of real natural laws. The functions of the social sciences, however, are not the same as those of the natural sciences. The empirical generalizations and theoretical models of social scientists fulfill always very important ideological functions, even where they are supposed to be „value-free“ and „scientific“ (section 7). Acknowledging this often neglected fact could change the self-image of many social research workers as well as the unrealistic goals that the theorists of science are usually setting to a „strictly scientific“ methodology of social research.

The Edwards' Report and the International Relations profession

1988 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Social Science Community ◽  
The Social ◽  
Science Community

The Economic and Social Research Council recently published a Report commissioned from a committee chaired by Professor Edwards, a psychiatrist, so that the Council, and the social science community in general, might know what was good and bad in British social sciences, and where the promising future research opportunities lie over the next decade. Boldly called ‘Horizons and Opportunities in the Social Sciences’, the Report condensed the wisdom of social scientists, both British and foreign, and concludes with a broadly but not uncritically favourable picture of the British scene.

Social Capital: Old Hat or New Insight?

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Healy
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Capital ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Power Structures ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Empirical Measures ◽  
Proxy Variables ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Irish Context ◽  
The Social

Following work by James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu in the 1980s, social scientists from different disciplinary backgrounds have engaged in a debate about the meaning and application of social capital. Questions arise about the coherence, novelty and analytical purchase of the term: there is a risk of overstretching the concept to include too much. Moreover, empirical measures and proxy variables are only very approximately matched to the underlying concept(s). Some applications of the concept lump together different strands of social behaviour and attitude and treats these as universally equivalent or ‘outside’ specific cultures, institutional settings, historical contexts and power structures. It is suggested that these problems cannot be entirely resolved and have parallel examples in all areas of empirical research in the social sciences. However, suggestions are made for greater trans-disciplinary research, dialogue and connection to policy and community practice in an Irish context. We can sum up our position as follows. Social capital has several adolescent characteristics: it is neither tidy nor mature; it can be abused, analytically and politically; its future is unpredictable; but it offers much promise.

scholarly journals Bias in Social Research

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Hammersley ◽  
R. Gomm
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Error ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Accurate Estimation ◽  
Population Parameter ◽  
True Score ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
Specific Sense

Accusations of bias are not uncommon in the social sciences. However, the term ‘bias’ is by no means straightforward in meaning. One problem is that it is ambiguous. Sometimes, it is used to refer to the adoption of a particular perspective from which some things become salient and others merge into the background. More commonly, ‘bias’ refers to systematic error: deviation from a true score, the latter referring to the valid measurement of some phenomenon or to accurate estimation of a population parameter. The term may also be used in a more specific sense, to denote one particular source of systematic error: that deriving from a conscious or unconscious tendency on the part of a researcher to produce data, and/or to interpret them, in a way that inclines towards erroneous conclusions which are in line with his or her commitments. In either form, the use of ‘bias’ to refer to systematic error is problematic. It depends on other concepts, such as ‘truth’ and ‘objectivity’, whose justification and role have been questioned. In particular, it seems to rely on foundationalist epistemological assumptions that have been discredited. And the various radical epistemological positions that some social scientists have adopted as an alternative either deny the validity of this concept of bias, explicitly or implicitly, or transform it entirely. We will argue, however, that while it is true that abandonment of a foundationalist conception of science has important implications for the meaning of ‘bias’ and its associated concepts, they are defensible; indeed, they form an essential framework for research as a social practice. In this context, we shall examine error as a matter of collegial accountability, and define ‘bias’ as one of several potential forms of error. We conclude by pointing to what we see as the growing threat of bias in the present state of social research.

scholarly journals The evolution of ‘culture’: Juggling a concept

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Palecek
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Explanatory Role ◽  
The Social ◽  
Evolutionary Science ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Cultural Evolutionary ◽  
Dual Inheritance

Although the concept of culture was severely criticized in the second half of the twentieth century, its explanatory use has not been abandoned. Evolutionary psychologists and cognitive scientists have more recently used the concept in models and theories of culture. This use renews the hope that the concept of culture can be explanatorily useful within the social sciences, especially since the new definition of culture connects with both the idea of evolution and with the other natural sciences. In this paper, I analyze the models of cultural evolution developed by Cultural Evolutionary Science (CES), more specifically gene-culture coevolution theoretical models and dual-inheritance theories. I argue that even if CES scholars mostly claim that for them, culture is equal to information, some of these models have aspirations to bring back cultures as discrete units that resemble the social anthropological models of culture that have been already abandoned. I discuss evolutionists’ and social anthropologists’ objections to these models. I claim that despite the popularity of cultural evolutionist theories, social scientists (cultural anthropologists and historians, for example) should remain skeptical about the possibility that this approach can assume an explanatory role for a concept of culture.

Kenneth Boulding’s Visual Imagination

2021 ◽  
pp. 213-241
Author(s):  
Philippe Fontaine
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Economic Modeling ◽  
Visual Images ◽  
Economic Knowledge ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Visual Imagination ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Difference

The merits of visual images in conveying truths about the social world is widely recognized in social science, but some commentators have suggested the possible inadequacies of postwar economics on that score. Unimpressed by the omnipresence of diagrams in economics, they note that these are not images in the sense that maps are. The story of Boulding, an admirer of maps and strong believer in visual reasoning, who moved away from economics to become a general social scientist in the late 1940s, seems to confirm the above assessment. Yet, the difference between economists and other social scientists does not so much reside in the absence of images in economics—some diagrams in economics are maps—as in their declining role in postwar economic modeling. In that respect, the story of Boulding, his lack of influence on economics and his increased recognition among other social sciences testify to the gradual backsliding of visual imagination in postwar economics. If many today recognize the usefulness of diagrams for the dissemination of economic knowledge, only a few are aware that preceding the attempts to make these diagrams intelligible to their users, a real effort of visual imagination was required for their creators to ensure their explanatory power.

ISLAMIC SOCIAL SCIENCES

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Abul Fadl
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Belief Systems ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Social Foundations ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Human Value ◽  
The Social ◽  
Western Values ◽  
Culture Brokers

The need for a relevant and instrumental body of knowledge that can secure the taskof historical reconstruction in Muslim societies originally inspired the da’wa for the Islamizationof knowledge. The immediate targets for this da’wa were the social sciences for obvious reasons.Their field directly impinges on the organization of human societies and as such carries intothe area of human value and belief systems. The fact that such a body of knowledge alreadyexisted and that the norms for its disciplined pursuit were assumed in the dominant practiceconfronted Muslim scholars with the context for addressing the issues at stake. How relevantwas current social science to Muslim needs and aspirations? Could it, in its present formand emphasis, provide Muslims with the framework for operationalizing their values in theirhistorical present? How instrumental is it in shaping the social foundations vital for the Muslimfuture? Is instrumentality the only criteria for such evaluations? In seeking to answer thesequestions the seeds are sown for a new orientation in the social sciences. This orientationrepresents the legitimate claims and aspirations of a long silent/silenced world culture.In locating the activities of Muslim social scientists today it is important to distinguishbetween two currents. The first is in its formative stages as it sets out to rediscover the worldfrom the perspective of a recovered sense of identity and in terms of its renewed culturalaffinities. Its preoccupations are those of the Muslim revival. The other current is constitutedof the remnants of an earlier generation of modernizers who still retain a faith in the universalityof Western values. Demoralized by the revival, as much as by their own cultural alientation,they seek to deploy their reserves of scholarship and logistics to recover lost ground. Bymodifying their strategy and revalorizing the legacy they hope that, as culture-brokers, theymight be more effective where others have failed. They seek to pre-empt the cultural revivalby appropriating its symbols and reinterpreting the Islamic legacy to make it more tractableto modernity. They blame Orientalism for its inherent fixations and strive to redress its selfimposedlimitations. Their efforts may frequently intersect with those of the Islamizing current,but should clearly not be confused with them. For all the tireless ingenuity, these effortsare more conspicuous for their industry than for their originality. Between the new breadof renovationists and the old guard of ‘modernizers’, the future of an Islamic Social Scienceclearly lies with the efforts of the former.Within the Islamizing current it is possible to distinguish three principal trends. The firstopts for a radical perspective and takes its stand on epistemological grounds. It questionsthe compatibility of the current social sciences on account of their rootedness in the paradigmof the European Enlightenment and its attendant naturalistic and positivist biases. Consistencedemands a concerted e€fort to generate alternative paradigms for a new social science fromIslamic epistemologies. In contrast, the second trend opts for a more pragmatic approachwhich assumes that it is possible to interact within the existing framework of the disciplinesafter adapting them to Islamic values. The problem with modern sciene is ethical, notepistemological, and by recasting it accordingly, it is possible to benefit from its strengthsand curtail its derogatory consequences. The third trend focuses on the Muslim scholar, rather ...

From Science as a Vocation to Science as a Game: and the Resulting Loss of Meaning

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Technical Expertise ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
World Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Voice

Against a generalized loss of meaning in society, social scientists find it hard to undertake relevant research that addresses problems facing our world. Science has turned from a vocation aimed at improving the lot of humanity to a careerist game dominated by publishing hits in starred journals. Instrumental rewards replace the passion for discovery and the intrinsic quest for knowledge. Competition among academics and academic institutions, such as journals, universities, and professional bodies, is not intrinsically harmful. Competition in the social sciences, however, is currently resulting in large quantities of formulaic publications, increasing specialization, faddishness, opportunism, and a general ironing out of originality and relevance. Academic authorship and the voice of individual scholars is wiped out as most papers are co-authored by several researchers, each a specialist in his or her area. The result is a devaluation of scholarship and a privileging of technical expertise in narrow disciplinary areas.

The Problem

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Alvesson ◽  
Yiannis Gabriel ◽  
Roland Paulsen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Prestigious Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Social ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
History Of ◽  
Wide Gap

This chapter introduces ‘the problem’ of meaningless research in the social sciences. Over the past twenty years there has been an enormous growth in research publications, but never before in the history of humanity have so many social scientists written so much to so little effect. Academic research in the social sciences is often inward looking, addressed to small tribes of fellow researchers, and its purpose in what is increasingly a game is that of getting published in a prestigious journal. A wide gap has emerged between the esoteric concerns of social science researchers and the pressing issues facing today’s societies. The chapter critiques the inaccessibility of the language used by academic researchers, and the formulaic qualities of most research papers, fostered by the demands of the publishing game. It calls for a radical move from research for the sake of publishing to research that has something meaningful to say.

International Relations an a World of Revolutionary Change

1949 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Easton Rothwell
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Carnegie Corporation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Wartime Experience

A PROJECT of collaborative research concerning major world trends affecting international relations has been launched this year at the Hoover Institute and Library. This project has been made possible by a three-year grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.1Beneath the original planning for the project lay the conviction born of wartime experience, that a deeper understanding of the dynamics of international relations could be obtained by pooling the contributions of the social sciences and related disciplines and by taking account of practical experience in the international field. The need for new and more penetrating approaches to international relations had been put by Arnold Toynbee in a few challenging words: “There is nothing to prevent our Western Civilization from following historical precedent, if it chooses, by committing social suicide. But we are not doomed to make history repeat itself; it is open to us through our own efforts, to give history, in our case, some new unprecedented turn.” Natural scientists, as well as social scientists are agreed that any “new unprecedented turn” must be sought in deeper understanding of relations among people and among nations.

Agency, Structure and Causality in Political Science: A Comment on Sibeon

Politics ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A. Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Structure ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Recent Contribution ◽  
Ontological Commitments ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
The Social ◽  
Ontological Turn

Researchers in political science are devoting increasing attention to the ontological commitments of their theories – that is, to what those theories presuppose about the nature of the political world. This article focuses on a recent contribution to this ‘ontological turn’ in political science ( Sibeon, 1999 ). Tensions are identified in Sibeon's account of the causal interplay between agency and social structure. It is argued that these tensions can be resolved by reflecting explicitly on ontological issues, in particular the causal efficacy of social structure, using a particular approach to the philosophy of the social sciences known as critical realism. The value of such reflection for the explanatory power of political analysis is highlighted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document