While natural scientists (e.g. astronomers and physicists etc) carry out research in order to uncover truths of the natural world, social scientists (e.g. psychologists and sociologists etc) attempt to uncover truths of the social world. Moser (1992) defines social research as the “systematic investigation to gain new knowledge about social phenomena and problems.”
Social scientists apply the scientific method of generating knowledge, which entails that research method must be based on testable empirical evidence, to the study of people within society and to describe observable phenomena, with consideration to social forces (e.g. economic factors like supply and demand), in an attempt to establish patterns of social behaviour.
Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) navigated his career with the lifelong concern of establishing a proper methodological and theoretical framework for the human sciences, distinct from that of the natural sciences. Dilthey argued that the human experience is divided into two parts: the natural world, ruled by “objective necessity,” and the inner world of experience, which entails “sovereignty of the will, responsibility for actions, a capacity to subject everything to thinking and to resist, within the fortress of freedom, of his/her own person” (Dilthey, 1883).
Social science research aims to encompass a number of the basic premises of natural science, in order to be considered truly scientific and not a pseudoscience. For example, rigorous and replicable methods should be aspired to, thus allowing for others to repeat the research in order to scrutinise it. If the research cannot be reproduced to generate similar results, it is unlikely to be accepted within the wider scientific community. Also, social scien...
... middle of paper ...
... of domestic violence in society meant that statistics were unlikely to reflect true levels of domestic violence.
Most social scientists will accept that good social research requires a balance of both objective and subjective knowledge. While objectivity is their elusive goal, sometimes hard facts and statistics alone provide an inadequate and limited view of social behaviour. While the objective view allows for the researcher to establish broad patterns of social behaviour, the subjective provides a deeper insight into reasons for the patterns. However, the subjective view is often considered to be less reliable than objective information. Therefore, social science research is often considered less reliable than natural science research. However, objective information is considered to be less ecologically valid (true to life)/relevant than subjective information.
In social science, there are several paradigms, each with its own unique ontological and epistemological perspective. Examples of paradigms include positivism which focuses on objectivity, know ability, and deductive logic. Its assumption is that society can and should be studied empirically and scientifically (Ritzer, 2004). Critical paradigm’s main emphasis is on power, inequality, and social change. It is of the assumption that social science can never be truly value-free and should be conducted with the express goal of social change in mind (Calhoun, 2007). Social constructionism paradigm’ s main emphasis is that truth as varying, socially constructed, and ever-changing and is of the assumption that reality is created collectively and that social context and interaction frame our realities (Berger, 1966).
Social science is defined as “the scientific study of human society and social relationships”. (Oxford Dictionaries 2013a) It is important to understand that different people would interact differently, giving rise to different different culture, social norms, beliefs and religions. By improving our understanding and awareness, we would be able to treat patients more efficiently and effectively whilst respecting their culture and beliefs. There is an increasing number of diseases and societal problems such as addiction, obesity, violence and end-of-life care that cannot be addressed without taking into account the behavioural or social factors. (Mann 2012)
Primary source data collection relies on structured interviews and questionnaires, which many argue do not offer enough fluidity to relate to everyday lives and therefore are not valid research tools (Bryman 2001, p.77). Critics also continue to associate positivism and quantitative methods failing to see that quantitative researchers do not apply the scientific method to all data and can account for influencing variables (Bryman 2001, p.77; Matthews and Ross 2010, p.29). Quantitative methods in the social sciences were highlighted by the positivist epistemology during the mid 20th century; however, Jones (2010) explains how the principles of positivist epistemology are not fully consistent with modern quantitative methods in the social sciences (Matthews and Ross 2010, p.27). Positivist research parallels that of the natural sciences, where data collection and hypothesis testing is conducted from information that can be observed and recorded by the senses (Matthews and Ross 2010, p.27). Because information can only be observed, positivists look for regularities and explain causation when one event regularly follows another, which is why many will criticize quantitative methods if they associate them with the positivist approach to research (Jones
Social science helps society bond our personal situations with our everyday life. This is shown through many topics such as sociological imagination and politics. Sociological Imagination is all about knowing the connection between personal experiences and society. Politics is what creates society. Studying these topics had brought a better idea of what social science is and how it impacts on me as a member of
What is sociology of science? Robert K. Merton, a famous sociology professor from Columbia University, found interest in the subject of how the social and cultural aspects within the lab affect the scientific data being produced. After observi...
Using the author’s field research I felt that many of them tried to enter their situation as an outsider looking in as most researchers do. Given time most of them were able to some what be accepted into their social surroundings. No matter what role or relationship the researchers developed along the way they still had to make choices to would affect their data in different ways. They just had to pick the correct approach and apply it. Finally all stories proclaimed different discussions of social science by using different forms of "objectivity" and "subjectivity."
Babbie, E. (2007) The Practice of Social Research. Thomson Higher Education. Belmont. (USA) Eleven Edition.
Without these different social sciences and scientists that study them, people may not know how the world really works. Scientists look into events that could potentially give ideas of why something became the way that it is. Sociological perspective also gives insight into why someone might be the way that they are. It is important for everyone to have a sociologist’s perspective because this means that, instead of judging someone only because of how another person see them the first time, that person would be able to try to find a deeper meaning and not be too quick to judge. Another thing that is important for people to have is sociological imagination. Sociological imagination gives a person the ability to see a connection between their own world and the bigger world. This is important so that a person could see how much they impact the world or how the world impacts
In conclusion conceptual relativism sets out to explain the world in term of the human mind to construct realities, and is concerned with truth and knowledge and radical Social constructionism is concerned with the idea that a variety of phenomena’s are socially constructed. This is then linked with the idea of radical anti-realism in relation to reality and the validity of science. Both are definitely problematic for any claim that the social sciences produce reliable knowledge for if knowledge is only meaningful to one group how can that have the same meanings to another group each individual sees the world through their own glasses so each and every individual holds a different opinion and no one opinion can be correct. How can any methods of research be correct if there is no real truth?
Research philosophy, refers to the development of knowledge adopted by the researchers in their research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). In other words, it is the theory that used to direct the researcher for conducting the procedure of research design, research strategy, questionnaire design and sampling (Malhotra, 2009). It is very important to have a clear understanding of the research philosophy so that we could examine the assumptions about the way we view the world, which are contained in the research philosophy we choose, knowing that whether they are appropriate or not (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009). According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009), three major ways of thinking about research philosophy are examined: ontology, epistemology and axiology. Each of them carries significant differences which will have an impact on the way we consider the research procedures. Ontology, “is concerned with nature of reality”, while epistemology “concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study and axiology “studies judgements about value” (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009, p110, p112, p116). This study is intent on creating some “facts” from objective evaluations which are made by the subjects. Therefore, epistemology will be chosen for this study as the way of thinking about the research philosophy.
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.
By the definition, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (Oxford dictionary). This crude definition is elaborated further by a world-famous sociologist Anthony Giddens as ‘the scientific study of human social life, groups, and societies. It is dazzling and compelling enterprise, as its subject matter is our own behavior as social beings. The scope of sociological study is extremely wide, ranging from the analysis of passing encounters between individuals on the street to the investigation of global social processes such as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.’ (Giddens: 2006)
Research today has become a central part of Sociology. Research in Sociology faces numerous puzzles and suspicions; challenges blind faith and unravel the mystery that surrounds the truth. According to Pauline V. Young “...sociological research is a systematic method of exploring ,analysing and conceptualising social life in order to extend ,correct ,or verify knowledge,
Social sciences are the analysis methodically of the social area of the world. They are mixed area of study of human behavior and society which include disciplines of anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. Social sciences study methodically the manner in which people behave and how they influence the world around us. It aims to comprehend any given social phenomena by using a methodology borrowed from the physical sciences. Natural sciences are the study of natural world. They use scientific method to study about nature and relate to everything else in nature such as the animals, earth, plants and etc. It covers topics such as physics, chemistry, and mathematics.
The social sciences have and will continue to be in the future will play an important role in studying and solving problems for both society and its individuals. The disciplines that it encompass vary widely but often need to come together to solve issues and study certain facets of humanity. For my personal use social science is a tool to better understand others, be more sensitive to issues that people may face and to anticipate the way people and society may act in certain situations. A social science lens can be productive in that it helps people be more indiscriminate though understanding people and their behavior. I hope to use the socials sciences to impact other people’s lives in a positive manner. The social sciences to me when used in a well-intended manner are able to not only explain phenomena but also be a solution and or make a situation better. The intent of this essay is to better understand and define the social sciences, touch on the many disciplines of the science in addition to its relationships with other scientific areas.