Scientific research misconduct in social science research: What is it and how can we address it?

This chapter focuses on a key debate in the philosophy of social science: whether it is possible to separate facts and values in social science research. It first considers normative and empirical theory in political research before discussing the ways in which the values of the researcher influence the research process. It then examines Thomas Kuhn’s arguments concerning paradigms and how they change through scientific ‘revolutions’, along with their implications for the possibility of value-free social inquiry. It looks at an example of how the notion of ‘paradigm’ has been applied to a specific area of inquiry within politics: the study of development. It also compares Kuhn’s paradigms with Imre Lakatos’ concept of ‘scientific research programmes’.

Download Full-text

Introduction

Interpretive Social Science ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198832942.003.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 1-17

Author(s):

Mark Bevir ◽

Jason Blakely

Keyword(s):

Nineteenth Century ◽

Twentieth Century ◽

Social Science ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Historical Narratives ◽

Special Focus ◽

Social Scientific Research ◽

Social Scientific

Readers are introduced to the major philosophical paradigms shaping social science research today, including hermeneutics and naturalism. The pervasive influence of naturalism on social scientific research is explained and the interpretive alternative is sketched. As part of this, readers are offered an account of the philosophical origins of today’s social science disciplines with a special focus on the case of political science. At the beginning of the twentieth century a modern, ahistorical, and formal paradigm for the study of politics was formed as scholars increasingly rejected the developmental historical narratives and Hegelianism of the nineteenth century. The chapter concludes with a brief overview of the argument of the book.

Download Full-text

3. Objectivity and Values

10.1093/hepl/9780198702740.003.0003 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Sandra Halperin ◽

Oliver Heath

Keyword(s):

Social Science ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Specific Area ◽

Science Research ◽

Research Process ◽

Empirical Theory ◽

Philosophy Of Social Science ◽

Scientific Revolutions ◽

Research Programmes

This chapter focuses on a key debate in the philosophy of social science: whether it is possible to separate facts and values in social science research. It first considers normative and empirical theory in political research before discussing the ways in which the values of the researcher influence the research process. It then examines Thomas Kuhn’s arguments concerning paradigms and how they change through scientific ‘revolutions’, along with their implications for the possibility of value-free social inquiry. It looks at an example of how the notion of ‘paradigm’ has been applied to a specific area of inquiry within politics: the study of development. It also compares Kuhn’s paradigms with Imre Lakatos’ concept of ‘scientific research programmes’.

Download Full-text

Ideology Between the Lines: Lay Inferences About Scientists’ Values and Motives

Social Psychological and Personality Science ◽

10.1177/1948550618790230 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. 832-841 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ivar R. Hannikainen

Keyword(s):

Social Science ◽

Scientific Inquiry ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Personal Ideology ◽

Social Scientific ◽

The Way

While philosophers emphasize the distinction between description and prescription, in practice people’s beliefs about contentious issues seem to reflect their normative commitments. Less is known about the way that people infer others’ ideology from their reports about matters of fact. In the context of scientific research on the heritability of intelligence, scientists’ normative views (Study 1a) and motives (Study 2) are inferred from the evidence they report—independently of their stated research objectives. Two preregistered replications (Studies 1b and 3) revealed that these effects generalize to other contentious domains of behavioral and social science research. Thus, laypeople view social scientific inquiry as (partly) a guided pursuit of evidence in favor of scientists’ personal ideology.

Download Full-text

Ideology between the lines: Lay inferences about scientists' values and motives

10.31234/osf.io/gyk26 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ivar Hannikainen

Keyword(s):

Social Science ◽

Scientific Inquiry ◽

Social Science Research ◽

Scientific Research ◽

Science Research ◽

Personal Ideology ◽

Social Scientific ◽

The Way

While philosophers emphasize the distinction between description and prescription, in practice people’s beliefs about contentious issues seem to reflect their normative commitments. Less is known about the way that people infer others’ ideology from their reports about matters of fact. In the context of scientific research on the heritability of intelligence, scientists’ normative views (Study 1a) and motives (Study 2) are inferred from the evidence they report–independently of their stated research objectives. Two pre-registered replications (Studies 1b and 3) revealed that these effects generalize to other contentious domains of behavioral and social science research. Thus, laypeople view social scientific inquiry as (partly) a guided pursuit of evidence in favor of scientists’ personal ideology.

Download Full-text