M8A1 Project #7
Dawn C. Murrain
Excelsior College
LA 498SS
Ethical Responsibilities in Social Science Research
Social Science Capstone
Instructor Adam McGlynn
April 20, 2014
Ethical Responsibilities of Social Science Research
Often, scientists are tasked with the role of providing evidence to support theories or to predict future outcomes based on scientific research. This methods or research are usually accepted in natural sciences like chemistry and physics. This is because unlike social science, they usually use formulas, well laid out structures and methods (Guttin, 2012). However, when it comes to social science, researchers usually work using theories by formulating hypothesis, and researching to prove or disapprove the theories. When doing this, social science researchers usually become advocates in certain circumstances. This paper highlights some of the pros and cons of scientists becoming advocates, and gives examples of when social scientists become advocates and situations where they observe objectivity.
Becoming advocates for social scientists have both benefits and drawbacks. On the good side, Gutting (2012) says that it can supplement general knowledge, critical intensity, practical experience and good sense. Gutting also says that scientists know where a certain piece of work falls in their relevant discipline. This allows them to be good advocates. Taking sides also allows social scientists to help curb harmful behaviors by conducting research on their harmful effects and discouraging the behaviors with facts. Examples are effects of drugs and substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors etc.
On the other hand, the cons of becoming an advocate are: (1) Overgeneralization- this happens when resear...
... middle of paper ...
...observe and report facts as given from both sides without interfering with any data. This is because people may base their decision to join a certain religion from the findings, only to be misguided by lack of objectivity by the researcher.
References
Corn-Revere, R (2011). Moral panics , the first amendment, and the limits of social science.
Communications Lawyer, 23 (3).
Gutting, G. (2012). How reliable are the social sciences. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/how-reliable-are-the-social-sciences/ Lecture notes. (2014). Module notes: concepts concerning reliable social science.
The Geographical Review. (2011). Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. The
Geographical Review. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA259624166&v=2.1&u=wash89460&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=1cc7b0c2170ba25ed09b4b3bcc06d896
Scientific research is constantly being battled in politics. The point of communication in science is to try and get across a proven theory to the public. Under the scrutiny of political agendas, these efforts face many hurdles. Informing the public of climate changes has had a positive impact on the acceptance of science. There are several techniques the scientific community communicates their findings to the public.
Gaskel, G. (2014) Thinking like a social scientist: Why methodology matters LSE100 Lecture Capture retrieved 26th March 2014 [http://moodle.lse.ac.uk]
...s. To lend instant credibility to the organization in the form of Ethos, the reputation of an ostensibly significant natural scientist is placed in the foreground. Pathos is then expressed in a procession of sentiment-stirring images arouses from the most-likely western audience an obligation to act against the presented injustices. The accompanying information, such as the argument presented in flash animation is presented in an intellectually congruent manner consistent with Logos. Each of these three modes of persuasion plays an integral part in a rhetorical balancing act and work in harmonious conjunction to sway an audience.
Social constructionism was the theory described by Joel Best that explains how things in life become controversies or problems. The ways in which society thinks about situations and uses categories to analyze events in the world structures experiences and understandings of these events. Humans look at events beyond an objectivist approach, and instead subjectively, affected by the framework in which one lives. The social constructionist theory can be used to look at the relationship between science and the people that it serves, illustrated in Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
...the anthropological and other social sciences the basis for forming non-biased studies results that can be respectfully referenced and relied upon for their integrity.
Hawley, Helen, and Gary Taylor. "Freedom of religion in America." Contemporary Review 282.1649 (2003): 344+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
Pendergast, Tom, Et Al. Constitutional Amendments: From Freedom of Speech to Flag Burning. N.p.: UXL, 2001. Print.
Huemer, Michael. “Is There a Right to Own a Gun?” Social Theory and Practice. 29.2 (April 2003): 297-324. ProQuest . Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.
Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. New York: Basic Books, 2007. Print.
Wilson believes that “consilience is the key to unification” (Wilson 8). With that being said, people should work together to discover new truths. They should use science, since that they were made from science. Learning about themselves will bring about new truths. Learning why they behave the way they do can explore disorders and possible diseases. Science ties in with everything that we see and do. There has to be evidence for everything that people claim. They cannot just say that they sky is blue, they must present evidence that is going to support their argument.
For instance, in a 2017 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, there was a clear correlation between religiosity and views on abortion, demonstrating religious individuals to generally be more opposed to abortion than nonreligious individuals (Masci, 2018). Accordingly, it may be disadvantageous to introduce scientific evidence to the pro-life movement as historically, science and many religions do not align. Religious activists may not trust scientific sources that come from a practice that consistently challenges their ideologies. Similarly, as the pro-life movement vastly centers around the ideal of “saving lives” introducing scientific evidence could be counterproductive as science in the past has denounced essential arguments of pro-life activists’ campaign such as, fetuses possessing the ability to feel pain. If pro-life advocates begin utilizing scientific evidence, where is the line drawn on what scientific evidence is
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Initially, early work in the emerging social sciences desired to “extend social knowledge and provide a more authoritative basis for dealing with contemporary social problems” (Ross 85). These pioneers of social science wanted to teach rational scientific principles to the future leaders of society in order to correct certain societal ills. In the 1880s, “militant” groups began to emphasize the use of empirical investigation to promote social accord and “moral betterment.” More specifically, they believed 1) that social science research was meant to bring about reforms in society and government and 2) that research could be conducted with moral/ethical conceptions. The general purpose of social science was altered once again when the militant group began to push for increased professionalization and occupational autonomy. Now, social science was to be conducted by research-oriented scholars whose inquiry was completely divorced from ethical/moral judgments and goals of achieving societal reform. Instead, the objective of research was to present purely empirical and apolitical results that prized scientific accuracy above social utility. After World War II, counter movements in the social sciences began to emerge which emphasized the use of subjectivity and value judgments in research. Ultimately, Ross explains that a cyclical pattern has emerged between those