scholarly journals Reviewing the logic of social scientific claims

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 113-124
Author(s):  
Stephen Gorard ◽  
Yiyi Tan
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Inferential Statistics ◽  
Problem Of Induction ◽  
Logical Foundations ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Observational Errors ◽  
Scientific Claims ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Standing Problem

This paper considers three different claims to knowledge, namely, “fully descriptive”, “generally descriptive” and causal claims. These are all common in social science, and each type of claim requires more assumptions than the previous one. After discussing their methodological and logical foundations, this paper describes some of the limitations in the nature of these three claims. Fully descriptive claims suffer from non-random errors and inaccuracies in observations, and can be queried in terms of utility. Generally, in addition to observational errors, descriptive can be questioned because of the long-standing problem of induction. Even the notion of falsification might not be able to help with this. Finally, causal claims are the most problematic of the three. While widely assumed, causation cannot be observed directly. The paper combines and develops three models of what causation might be, and discusses their implications for causal claims. It points out that so far our belief in causation is still a kind of religious one, and that neither theory nor inferential statistics can help in proving or observing its existence. Finally, the paper provides some suggestions for avoiding being misled by false knowledge and reporting our research findings with tentative care and judgement.

Counting Confucians through Social Scientific Research

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Sun
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Chinese Religions ◽  
Social Scientific Research ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Standing Problem

This chapter discusses the long-standing problem of identifying Confucians in China (and East Asia in general) through social science research methods—a problem deeply rooted in the nineteenth-century conceptualization of Confucianism and the overall classification of Chinese religions. It investigates different types of empirical data—national censuses and surveys—from Mainland China, as well as from Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, in order to answer two questions. First is about whether “Confucianism” is a category in religious classifications in these East Asian countries and regions; the second asks about how many people are counted as “Confucians” in China.

Decolonializing Applied Social Sciences (includes comments and author's reply)

1971 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Stavenhagen
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
Social Scientist ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
A Value ◽  
Radical Critique ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Participant Observer

The radical critique questions the theoretical conceptions implicit in much current social scientific activity. It implies not only that a measure of ideology is inseparable from professional practice (contrary to hollow claims to a "value-free" social science), but also requires the development of adequate theory capable of explaining, even when not testable empirically, what society is all about (particularly those societies or parts thereof where applied social scientists generally exercise their profession). A second imperative refers to the problem of communications: how can research findings best be made available to those most in need of social knowledge yet usually leàst capable of acquiring it; who also happen to be precisely those groups most commonly studied by social scientists. A critical and committed social science must also turn from the traditional study of the underdog to that of the dominant elites and the system of domination itself. Ideological commitment by the social scientist to the anti-status quo might also lead to his emerging role as activist, and not merely as participant, observer. The applied social scientist cannot, by definition, be neutral to the larger political and ideological issues which determine the framework of his professional practice, whether he is engaged in international organizations or works on development problems within his own national context.

Feudal Europe, 800–1300: communal discourse and conflictual practices

1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Structural Theory ◽  
Historical Change ◽  
Fundamental Significance ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Scientific Argument

The discipline of international relations faces a new debate of fundamental significance. After the realist challenge to the pervasive idealism of the interwar years and the social scientific argument against realism in the late 1950s, it is now the turn of critical theorists to dispute the established paradigms of international politics, having been remarkably successful in several other fields of social inquiry. In essence, critical theorists claim that all social reality is subject to historical change, that a normative discourse of understandings and values entails corresponding practices, and that social theory must include interpretation and dialectical critique. In international relations, this approach particularly critiques the ahistorical, scientific, and materialist conceptions offered by neorealists. Traditional realists, by contrast, find a little more sympathy in the eyes of critical theorists because they join them in their rejection of social science and structural theory. With regard to liberal institutionalism, critical theorists are naturally sympathetic to its communitarian component while castigating its utilitarian strand as the accomplice of neorealism. Overall, the advent of critical theory will thus focus the field of international relations on its “interparadigm debate” with neorealism.

Why they shared: recovering early arguments for sharing social scientific data

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-119
Author(s):  
Emily Hauptmann
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Ethical Imperative ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
The University ◽  
University Consortium

ArgumentMost social scientists today think of data sharing as an ethical imperative essential to making social science more transparent, verifiable, and replicable. But what moved the architects of some of the U.S.’s first university-based social scientific research institutions, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR), and its spin-off, the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), to share their data? Relying primarily on archived records, unpublished personal papers, and oral histories, I show that Angus Campbell, Warren Miller, Philip Converse, and others understood sharing data not as an ethical imperative intrinsic to social science but as a useful means to the diverse ends of financial stability, scholarly and institutional autonomy, and epistemological reproduction. I conclude that data sharing must be evaluated not only on the basis of the scientific ideals its supporters affirm, but also on the professional objectives it serves.

scholarly journals Combining Multiple Organizational-level Databases: An Empirical Evaluation of Different Matching Methods

2021 ◽  
pp. 004912412098618
Author(s):  
Tim de Leeuw ◽  
Steffen Keijl
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evaluation ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Matching Methods ◽  
Matching Process ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Insight Into

Although multiple organizational-level databases are frequently combined into one data set, there is no overview of the matching methods (MMs) that are utilized because the vast majority of studies does not report how this was done. Furthermore, it is unclear what the differences are between the utilized methods, and it is unclear whether research findings might be influenced by the utilized method. This article describes four commonly used methods for matching databases and potential issues. An empirical comparison of those methods used to combine regularly used organizational-level databases reveals large differences in the number of observations obtained. Furthermore, empirical analyses of these different methods reveal that several of them produce both systematic and random errors. These errors can result in erroneous estimations of regression coefficients in terms of direction and/or size as well as an issue where truly significant relationships might be found to be insignificant. This shows that research findings can be influenced by the MM used, which would argue in favor of the establishment of a preferred method as well as more transparency on the utilized method in future studies. This article provides insight into the matching process and methods, suggests a preferred method, and should aid researchers, reviewers, and editors with both combining multiple databases and describing and assessing them.

Considering Finite Provinces of Meaning

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
Jerry Williams ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Scientific Concepts ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Finite Provinces Of Meaning ◽  
Social Scientific

This essay considers social science as a finite province of meaning. It is argued that teasing out common-sense meanings from social scientific conceptions is difficult because the meanings of scientific concepts are often veiled in life-worldly taken-for-grantedness. If social scientists have successfully created a scientific province of meaning, attempts to communicate findings outside of this reduced sphere of science should be somewhat problematic.

Navigeren in het onderzoeksveld en het onderzoekersveld: reflecties op onderzoekspositionaliteit in (vermeend) insideronderzoek

KWALON ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Jing Hiah
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Insider Research ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Navigating the research and researchers’ field: Reflections on positionality in (assumed) insider research To challenge rigid ideas about objectivity in social science research, qualitative researchers question their own subjectivity in the research process. In such endeavors, the focus is mainly on the positionality of the researcher vis-à-vis their respondents in the research field. In this contribution, I argue that the positionality of the researcher in academia, what I refer to as the researchers’ field, is equally important as it influences the way research findings are received and evaluated. Through reflections on positionality in my insider research concerning labour relations and exploitation in Chinese migrant businesses in the Netherlands and Romania, I explore how my positionality as an insider negatively influenced my credibility and approachability in the researchers’ field. I conclude that it is necessary to pay more attention to researchers’ positionality in academia as it may shed light on and make it possible to discuss the written and unwritten standards of researchers’ credibility and approachability as an academic in the researchers’ field. Accordingly, this could provide insights into the causes of inequalities in academia and contribute to the current challenge for more diversity in academia.

scholarly journals The Usage of CAUSE in Three Branches of Science

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
Bei Yang ◽  
Bin Chen
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Academic Writing ◽  
Applied Science ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Pure Science ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
British National Corpus ◽  
Semantic Prosody ◽  
National Corpus

<p>Semantic prosody is a concept that has been subject to considerable criticism and debate. One big concern is to what extent semantic prosody is domain or register-related. Previous studies reach the agreement that CAUSE has an overwhelmingly negative meaning in general English. Its semantic prosody remains controversial in academic writing, however, because of the size and register of the corpus used in different studies. In order to minimize the role that corpus choice has to play in determining the research findings, this paper uses sub-corpora from the British National Corpus to investigate the usage of CAUSE in different types of scientific writing. The results show that the occurrence of CAUSE is the highest in social science, less frequent in applied science, and the lowest in natural and pure science. Its semantic prosody is overwhelmingly negative in social science and applied science, and mainly neutral in natural and pure science. It seems that the verb CAUSE lacks its normal negative semantic prosody in contexts that do not refer to human beings. The implications of the findings for language learning are also discussed.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document