English for Social Sciences

JUSTIFYING
THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
English for Social Sciences
Birkbeck, University of London
November 2002
INTRODUCTION
In this essay I am going to talk about Social Sciences in general, to be able to understand if we can give it the
name of Science or not. There is still some controversy about this topic so I will try to find an answer that it
would probably be different to my colleagues' opinion. So my first step will be to give a common definition
seeing which subjects are included in it. I will take a look at the history and all the authors who has
contributed in any way with some important aspects to the justification of Social Sciences. I will be
comparing it all the time with the Physical or Natural Sciences, because its methods of research are
universally considered as scientific.
SOCIAL SCIENCES
It is the concept to define the set of disciplines which deal with aspects of human society. The Social Sciences
have been divided into numerous areas of teaching and research. They include, centrally:
• Economics
• Sociology (and Anthropology)
• Political Science
• Philosophy
And also other disciplines as Industrial Relations, International Relations, Business Studies and Social
(Public) Administration. Frequently, Social Science defines Sociology only.
Everywhere, an analogy to the Natural Sciences has always existed and it has been discussed. As an example,
in 1982, the British Government changed the name of the publicly financed Social Science Research Council,
arguing that Social Studies would be a more appropriate description for disciplines that are not scientific. The
Council is now called Economic and Social Research Council.
If we take a look at the history, the separate identity of Social and Natural Sciences is due much to the great
revolutions of the 18th Century:
• The Industrial (English) Revolution
• The Bourgeois (French) Revolution
COMTE took the term Science Social from CHARLES FOURIER. He had no doubt that the method of Social
Science (which he also called Social Physics) was in no way different from that of the Natural Science.
But early in the 20th century, a new aspect of Social Science emerged. Against who tried to imitate the
Natural Sciences in the study of Social phenomena, the German School of Thought (MAX WEBER)
established a different approach, Verstehen, of understanding, because there were a few Social phenomena
1
that could not be studied with such rigid scientific analysis.
VERSTEHEN: One of the significant aspects of this theory is that it poses the problem of intercultural access
to meaning and the understanding of an Other's viewpoint. How does one escape from the particularity of
one's own understanding as a researcher and 'comprehend' the understanding of another person, group or
historical culture? Verstehen has been parodied as a matter of "putting oneself in someone else's shoes" to
see social situations from 'their' point of view.
MAX WEBER introduced as well into Social Sciences what were later called Hermeneutics.
HERMENEUTICS: To interpret or translate". It is the theory and practice of interpretation. The
"hermeneutic cycle" is the process by which we return to a text, or to the world, and derive a new
interpretation.
These two expressions are very important inside Social Sciences, but are most closely associated with the
subject of Sociology and its history. I think it explains the way that Social Scientists do their research, trying
to understand all the points of view and making different interpretations in order to be able to affirm that an
hypothesis is true or not.
Economics it began to go its own way. It has developed as the discipline which most deserve the name of
Science (among all the other Social Sciences). As an Economics student I can say that theories are developed
and tested, if not always against reality, then at least, against models and their hypothesis. Descriptive
economics have become the exception.
However, Humanistic Geography, Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science, Psychology and History, have in
common their anti−scientific postures. They concentrate on people rather than external forces. Imply an
emphasis on emotions and morality rather than instrumental calculation, interpretive rather than quantitative
methods. The difference between Social and Natural Sciences is the individual.
The Sociologists, in general, have different views:
• There are some of them who do not share the idea of Social studies should be seen as scientific in any
case based on the Physical Sciences.
• For some Sociologists, the essential characteristics of social action mean that Sociology can only
explain satisfactorily using significative understanding and explanation and that scientific laws can
play no part.
• And the most Sociologists recognize that important differences exist between the Social and the
Physical Sciences, but they reject any suggestion that these differences mean that Sociology must be
seen as non−science because of this.
But the more usual position is that the term Social Sciences can be justified by the existence in Sociology of
systematic research methods, and significative and sociological explanations. Although there are important
exceptions, Sociologists will usually consider Sociology as scientific in one or more of the several senses in
which the term Science is used. With its definition we can see it clearly.
SCIENCE: The application of systematic methods of observation and careful logical analysis. The term also
refers to the body of knowledge produced by the use of the scientific method.
So I can see that Sociologists and Philosophers who reject the term Social Science, usually do it because they
use a definition of Science maybe very restrictive. But I do not want to decide what to think until I have more
2
information.
Among people who study any Social Science, we can differentiate two types of Sociologists. When
Sociologists obtain knowledge through research and investigation they are called Social Scientists. And when
they obtain it by individuals depending on intuition or common sense, they are called Social Seers. In all this
years, Social Scientists have made big errors even affirming that they are scientifically objectives. One
example is the considerable number of research and writing early in the 20th century that proved the
inferiority of certain races.
On the other hand, Social Seers at times have advanced ideas that may be strongly true, even if they lack
scientific rigor.
It is good to speculate and to hypothesize, but Social Scientists need to be convinced. Evidence becomes an
obsession and this insistence is the characteristic of Social Sciences, the most important factor that
differentiates it from knowledge derived from other sources.
Contrary to knowledge based on intuition, abstract thought or revelation, knowledge in the Social Science is
based on the scientific method. Before a proposition is accepted as true, it must be demonstrated to be
consistent with the available evidence and must resist the critical analysis of other researchers and critics. But
not all the areas of Social Sciences follow all these steps and that is the origin of the controversy and all of my
doubts.
CONCLUSION
I think that each field of Social Sciences must be considered as a Science, when its study involves
observation, experiment, proper quantification and the search for universal general laws and explanations. If
Social Science did not arrive at a permanent understanding of social phenomena, accepted by a total
agreement of researchers, it would be not right to qualify as a science. So I think that among all subjects
included in Social Sciences, only Economics can be considered Science, as I explained before.
Philosophy, for example, although a rational activity, would not be considered as a science because there is no
conformity in how disagreements may be resolved. Philosophers continue discussing and debating, and, as
experience shows, disagreements tend never to be resolved and this is not a good source for objective
knowledge, I think.
So in my opinion, rationality is not sufficient to qualify an area of investigation as a science. What I think is
necessary is that disagreements must be resolved with objectivity by those with the intellectual ability and
skills required to understand the problem.
Compared to the Natural Sciences, knowledge in the Social Sciences does not have a tendency to fixed
answers. Social Sciences are full of ambiguity. It is not necessary for a Social Science to follow the methods
of the Natural Sciences in order to be considered a "science". It is sufficient for it to produce objective
knowledge.
So I think that not all the fields of Social Sciences (as Sociology or Philosophy) can be called a science,
because it does not produce "objective knowledge". With this I do not want to say that social investigation is
without importance. A Sociologist can arrive at results which are not only significant for Sociology as a field
of research which concentrate on the rational comprehension of human society. It is also valuable for
understanding our own lives.
So, by comparison with Natural Sciences, there are few obvious frontiers in Social Sciences. There is nothing
in Social Sciences to compare with the discovery of the atom or the development of genetic engineering.
3
However, Social Sciences are very important because creates relationships among apparently disconnected
events and finds deeper meaning in aspects of social life that are only superficially understood.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
• The Social Science Encyclopedia. Adam & Jessica Kuper, 1985.
• Dictionary Collins of Sociology. David & Julia Jary, 1991. Harper Collins Publishers.
• Writing and thinking in the Social Sciences. Sharon Friedman, Stephen Steinberg, 1989. Prentice
Hall.
• http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm
• The Rules of Sociological Method, E. Durkheim, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1938
4