Dilemmas the Researchers Face

DILEMMAS THE RESEARCHERS FACE

1. Once a research problem has been identified, the formulation of the research questions will be determined by what the researcher wants to achieve.

1. In order to answer the research questions, a choice from amongst the research strategies must be made.

1. While the choice of research strategies should be made on the basis of how best to answer the research questions, it is likely to be influenced by the research problem to which the researcher is committed or which is regarded as providing the best orientation towards the research problem.

1. The selection of a research paradigm is more complex and is influenced by theoretical, philosophical, ideological and/or political considerations, as well as a researcher's past experiences, peer and audience expectations, and personal worldview.

[pic 1]

DILEMMAS

1. The selection of a research problem confronts a researcher with some very basic dilemmas.

1. It is vital to understand these dilemmas since an understanding of these will enable a social science researcher more aware of the challenges ahead.

1. As each research problem incorporates a position on the issues, it is important for researchers to be aware of what they are buying when choosing both a research paradigm and a research strategy.

1. These controversies can be expressed as a series of questions:

1. Are social sciences possible?

1. Can social sciences use the same methods and procedures as the natural sciences?

1. What are the methods of the natural sciences?

[pic 2]

ARE SOCIAL SCIENCES POSSIBLE?

1. The nature of social science as a science has been a matter of considerable debate. Unfortunately, there is no simple and straightforward answer to this question.

1. Theodore Schutz wrote in 1963:

1. There is a controversy which for more than half a century has split not only logicians and methodologists but also social scientists into two schools of thought.

1. First school of thought: methods of the natural sciences which have brought about such magnificent results have to be applied in their entirety to the study of all human affairs whether natural or social.

1. Second school of thought: there is a basic difference in the structure of the social world and the world of nature.

1. This feeling has led to the other extremes, namely the conclusion that the methods of the social sciences are totally different from those of natural sciences.

1. It has been maintained that social sciences are idiographic1 but natural sciences are nomothetic2.

1. Natural sciences have to deal with constant relations of magnitude which can be measured and can perform experiments, whereas neither measurement nor experiment is practicable in the social sciences.

[pic 3]

1. idiographic describes the study of the individual, who is seen as a unique agent with a unique life history, with properties setting him/her apart from other individuals
2. Nomothetic is based on what Kant describes as a tendency to generalize and is typical for natural sciences

[pic 4]

1 | P a g e

1. In general, it is held that the natural sciences have to deal with material objects and processes, the social sciences, however, with psychological and intellectual ones and that, therefore, the method of the former consists in explaining, and that of the latter in understanding.

1. While some progress has been made in achieving a better understanding of the nature of these schools of thought, and some proposals for alternative positions to bridge the difference have been offered, the issue of the extent to which social life can be studied in the same way as nature has identified it as 'the primal problem of the philosophy of the social sciences'.

[pic 5]

CAN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES USE THE SAME METHODS AND PROCEDURES AS THE NATURAL

SCIENCES?

1. There are four ways to answer this question:

1. Naturalism

1. Negativism

1. Historicism

1. Postmodernism

[pic 6]

NATURALISM

1. This doctrine maintains that just as there is a unity in nature, so there is also unity in methods and procedures used to investigate nature.

1. In a more extreme version of naturalism, all phenomena are reduced to physical processes and properties, such as human emotions being reduced to physiological processes3.
2. It follows from this that only one set of methods is required for all the sciences.

1. Naturalism argues that in spite of the differences in subject matter of the various scientific disciplines, both natural and social, the same methods can be used although each science must elaborate them in a way appropriate to its objects of enquiry.

1. It is important to note that the reference to 'methods' in these questions do not refer to the actual techniques of observation, data gathering or data analysis, but rather to the logic of enquiry, to the processes by which knowledge is generated and justified.

1. The techniques of data gathering and analysis used in the various disciplines are related to the nature of their particular subject matters.

1. While some techniques may be used in more than one discipline - e.g. particular statistical tests - the study of chemical structures is a very different activity from the study of social structures.

1. Back in 1843, the philosopher John Stuart Mill adopted this position as a way of rescuing the social (or moral) sciences from what he regarded as an unsatisfactory state.

1. He believed that all scientific explanations have fundamentally the same logical structure.

1. He said: “I do not intend to assert that there are no differences whatever between the methods of the theoretical sciences of nature and of society; such differences clearly exist, even between the various natural sciences themselves, as well as between the various social sciences … But I agree with Comte and Mill - and many others … - that the methods in the two fields are fundamentally the same.”

1. Hence, the question, 'can the social sciences use the same methods and procedures as the natural sciences?', is answered in the affirmative.

1. Not only is it acknowledged that social sciences are possible, but they should be seen as part of the spectrum of all sciences.

[pic 7]

3 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

[pic 8]

2 | P a g e

1. Differences between the sciences in their subject matters are regarded as being irrelevant; for, after all, the natural sciences themselves deal with very different types of phenomena.

1. If the social sciences are to flourish, it is argued, they should adopt the methods that have been so successful in the natural sciences.

[pic 9]

NEGATIVISM

1. The proponents of negativism claim that the methods of natural sciences cannot be applied in the social sciences.

1. It is argued that, in contrast to natural phenomena, human beings have a component of 'free will' that undermines any attempts to explain and predict human activity.

1. Arguments4 against the notion that all sciences (natural or social) follow the same methods:

1. Laws of nature apply throughout space and time, whereas, regularities5 in social life are time and space-specific. Social uniformities cannot be generalized since they change from one historical period to another and cross culture. Social uniformities are the result of human activity and can, therefore, be changed by human activity.

1. It is virtually impossible to conduct experiments in social sciences because conditions of the experiment cannot be controlled like they are controlled in natural sciences.

1. In natural sciences like physics, nothing new really happens; newness is merely a rearrangement of the elements. In biology, it is possible for organisms to lose the sense of novelty in experimental situations. The first application of the procedure changes the possible influence of later applications; organisms learn by experience. However, it is possible to dispose of organisms whose behavior has been changed by experimental procedures. If societies or social groups are regarded as being like organisms, they too can learn by experience and achieve social newness, but they cannot be disposed of in the same manner. This learning becomes part of a group's history.

1. The subject matter of the natural sciences is much less complicated than the subject matter of the social sciences. Social life presupposes the existence of highly intelligent creatures that have both the capacity and the need for culture. Because they cannot rely on instincts to regulate their activities, they have to construct a social world to inhabit. Therefore, the social sciences face a dual complexity; the impossibility of artificial isolation and a subject matter that transcends the subject matters of the social sciences. Even if social regularities exist, these complications may make it impossible to discover them.

1. Theories in the natural sciences are intended to make predictions possible. The form of this prediction is that if certain natural laws apply in a particular circumstance, and certain conditions are met, certain outcomes will follow. However, in the social sciences, a prediction may have an influence on the predicted event; knowledge of the outcome can change the way people behave; thus producing the possibility of either a self-fulfilling prophecy or a failed prediction.

1. It follows from the difficulties of making predictions in the social sciences that there is a complex interaction between the observer and the observed that may threaten objectivity. Because the social scientist is a member of the category of phenomenon being studies, disinterested detachment may not be possible. Hence, it might be argued, objectivity and the search for truth are impossible in social sciences; all social research will be contaminated by the values and interests of the researcher.

[pic 10]

1. Given by Karl Popper

1. Regularity, as you may recall from earlier classes, is a pattern of action or behavior that exists when certain social actors interact with each other.

[pic 11]

3 | P a g e

1. Whereas the natural sciences can work productively in an atomistic manner by regarding their phenomena as consisting of constellations of parts or elements or factors, a social group must be regarded as more than the mere sum of its members, or the sum of the personal relationships existing at any moment in time. Social groups have a culture and a history. In order to understand and explain social structures and processes, it is necessary to treat social groups holistically.

1. The natural sciences aim at causal explanations; the social sciences can aim only at an understanding of meaning and purpose. In proposing this distinction, Popper has argued that, in fields such as physics, explanation is concerned with universal uniformities, expressed quantitatively and in mathematical formulae, while sociology must use qualitative notions and more intuitive understanding.

1. This use of quantitative analysis and mathematical formulae is not possible in the social sciences because the concepts found in social theories can be measured only qualitatively, or with a very low level of precision. This is not the deny that the social sciences may use certain statistical technique in data analysis, but it is argued that it is not possible to formulate social laws in the precise mathematical terms possible in physics.

1. Consequences of Popper’s arguments:

1. The intention of making these arguments was not to attack social sciences but to counter naturalism.

1. The extent to which they are seen to be a problem depends on the research paradigm adopted.

1. In varying ways, the research paradigms attempt to resolve those that are considered to be significant.

1. As far as the negativists are prepared to accept that some form of social research is possible, they will limit it to purely descriptive research; explanation and prediction are considered to be impossible.

1. According to this view, social research can produce descriptions of specific events in language that may have specific meanings, using singular statements that assert nothing beyond that event.

1. Predictions made in the natural sciences, even by means of well-known physical laws, occur only within certain artificial and idealized conditions, such as in a perfect vacuum.

1. 'With the less exact sciences, such as meteorology, prediction is notoriously hazardous, while with living systems (not to say, sub-atomic physics) we are seldom dealing with anything better than probabilities' (Richards, 1983).

1. Whether these sciences will be able to improve their predictive capacity in the future is an open question.

1. However, the influence of culture and history is regarded by the advocates of some research paradigms as making predictions impossible.

1. But this does not rule out the possibility of social sciences; it just makes for a different kind of science.

1. Experiments in Social Sciences:

1. On the problem of using experiments in the social sciences, Popper has contended that the argument rests on lack of understanding of the experimental method used in physics.

1. Of course, without knowing a great deal about a particular phenomenon, it is difficult to describe what would constitute similar conditions and what kind and degree of similarity are relevant.

1. Similarly, it may be difficult to establish what degree and type of experimental controls are necessary.

1. These problems are present in both the natural and the social sciences and, according to Popper, can be resolved only by experimentation.

[pic 12]

4 | P a g e

1. While the physicist may be in a better position that the social scientist to cope with these problems, either because social phenomena are more complex than natural phenomena, or because physics has a longer history, Popper has argued that there is nothing fundamentally different between the two fields in their potential to conduct experiments.

1. It is worth noting, however, that many areas of the natural sciences - for example astronomy - have developed without being able to use experimental manipulation, and in some areas of modern science, such as geology and evolutionary biology, there is little scope for it.

1. Prejudices in a Social Scientist

1. It has been argued that the possibility of social researchers allowing their values and prejudices to influence the research process - (1) such as the choice of what is studied, (2) how it is studied,

1. what is regarded as acceptable evidence, (4) how data are collected and (5) how the results are interpreted - makes it difficult to achieve objectivity.

1. Whether complete objectivity is possible, or even approachable, is a complex and debatable issue6.

1. While such issues may appear to be less serious in the natural sciences, they are nevertheless present.

1. Some of those who believe that value-free social science is not possible have suggested that social scientists should state their values and attitudes as fully and honestly as possible.

1. This will help others to be aware of possible influences and, hence, how the research results should be interpreted.

1. However, while this may be desirable, it is difficult to establish the effects of a social scientist's values and attitudes on the research process and outcomes.

1. Another radical solution has been to abandon the idea of a value-free or objective social science, to treat social phenomena as essentially subjective, and to maximize the subjective involvement of the researcher.

1. Conclusion:

1. It is clear that there are some particular problems that make it difficult to model the social sciences on the natural sciences, but it is also clear that the natural sciences are not without their own problems.

1. Whether the conclusion is that social science is not really possible will depend on:

1. How these difficulties are viewed?

1. What responses are made?

1. What kind of social science is considered to be appropriate?

[pic 13]

HISTORICISM

1. In part, historicism is a response to some of the problems raised by negativism about the possibility of social science.

1. The fundamental claim of historicism is that there are fundamental differences between the natural and social sciences, only some of the methods of the natural sciences can be applied in the social sciences.

1. In particular, it is the issue of generalization that is considered to separate the two realms.

1. According to historicism, historical and cultural relativity7 make most of the methods of the natural sciences inapplicable in the social sciences.

1. In spite of this, historicism accepts that there are two common elements in the methods of the natural and the social sciences.

[pic 14]

1. We will get to it Inshallah

1. That is, events in social sciences are subject to history and culture

[pic 15]

5 | P a g e

1. Both are concerned with explaining and predicting events through the use of theories

1. Both rely on observing the patterns or trends in the past

1. Moreover, both natural and social sciences are both theoretical and empirical.

1. Historicism claims that predictions can be made about the future trends.

1. It is the success of fields such as positional astronomy 8 , with its capacity to predict astronomical phenomena, such as eclipses and the path of comets, which has encouraged historicism to argue that the social sciences can predict future with events such as revolutions.

1. It is acknowledged that social predictions may lack the detail and precision of natural science predictions, but their vagueness is compensated for their scope and significance.

1. Historicism is interested in large-scale forecasts, not short-term predictions.

1. Historicism aims to develop laws of historical development, laws that link up the successive historical periods, laws of process and change, rather than of uniformities.

1. While historicism rejects the capacity of the social sciences to develop universal laws through the use of methods such as the experiment, it claims that though the establishment of laws of historical development it is possible to predict the future course of history.

[pic 16]

POSTMODERNISM

1. The postmodern turn, or postmodernism, refers to a group of perspectives on social theory and research that challenge the way in which the social sciences were traditionally understood about fifty years ago.

1. A somewhat parallel process has been occurring in the arts, architecture and literature.

1. Postmodernism means different things to different people, it is difficult to define it concisely.

1. The easiest way to think about postmodernism is to contrast it with modernism.

1. Potter has characterized the differences, in the context of the social sciences, in terms of caricatures of the differences between two friends.

1. Potter said:

1. The modernist is well meaning and hardworking, but she has not got so much of a sense of humor: she is constantly struggling to get the best understanding of what is going on in any situation.

1. She knows what she is like: confident, honest and forthright.

1. The postmodernist talks more about work than actually doing it; she is witty and ironic - you never know whether she is making fun of you or sending herself up.

1. You would be hard put to say whether she has a particular personality or not; she is many things at once, and none of them seems more true than any other.

1. What follows spells out the significance of these differences.

1. Concept of postmodernism has been used to refer to three different types of development:

1. Development 1: first describes changes in art and architecture involving a rejection of the idea of representation in the former and the adoption of local and mixed styles in the latter.

1. Development 2: second describes changes in contemporary society to post-industrial and post-capitalist forms, or to cultural changes within capitalism generally associated with consumerism, popular culture, mass media and economic globalization.

1. Development 3: third refers to developments in French and Anglo-Saxon philosophy and social theory that have come to have a significant impact of social research.

[pic 17]

8 Positional astronomy is a peculiar case in natural sciences. The whole domain is based on the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe (Geocentric Model of Universe proposed by Ptolemy). However, Geocentric model was rejected by Copernicus who “proved” that the Sun is the center of the “universe” (Heliocentric Model). Despite its foundation completely rejected, position astronomy still works perfectly fine.