A Sea Change in Political Methodology (original) (raw)
Related papers
2011
questioning scientific-metodologic parameters in the quest for aplicability of knowledge Juan rodríguez medela y Óscar salguero montaño The applicability of social science has a series of implications, though known, they are not always fully taken into account. Through an experience that could be called ‘autonomous research’, this article reflects on how the understanding of certain realities becomes the beginning of a process of questioning methodologies and scientific parameters, and their use outside Academy. In this sense, knowledge and understanding of these mechanisms and realities becomes in turn a rationalized anger that “forces us” to intervene, using and experimenting with different ways in which such knowledge becomes an effective tool for political activity (in its broadest sense).
The Division of Labor in Social Science Research: Unified Methodology or 'Organic Solidarity'?
POLITY
Contending methodological perspectives and different types of research products are founded on irreconcilable philosophical assumptions. Thus, the sharp, recurrent debates over social science research methods are likely to be fruitless and counterproductive. This article seeks to help develop a common appreciation of how different kinds of methods and research products advance our understanding of different aspects of social life at different levels of abstraction. I begin by exposing some of the philosophical assumptions underlying the idea of a unified social science methodology. I then suggest that such commonly posited dichotomies as deductivist/inductivist logic, quantitative/qualitative analysis, and nomothetic/idiographic research end up obscuring significant differences along a continuum of strategies through which contextual information and general analytic constructs are combined to produce interpretations of varying degrees of complexity or generality. Durkheim’s conception of “organic solidarity” in a social “division of labor” serves as a useful metaphor here to capture the complementary roles performed by various research products as well as the trade-offs arising from the strengths and weaknesses of various methodological approaches (ranging from formal and statistical approaches to various case-based and interpretive approaches). Thus, sharp claims regarding the strengths and limitations of particular methods are transformed into elements of an overarching agnostic understanding of the trade-offs and complementarities among these methods. The article concludes by considering the distinctive role played by an ideal-typical “middle-range” comparative-historical approach in fostering greater communication among a more inclusively defined community of methodologically diverse social scientists.
Philosophical Pitfalls: The Methods Debate in American Political Science
Positivism dominates research in U.S. political science. I will show that even though critical realism is virtually unknown in the discipline, realist concepts have found their way into debates among qualitative methodologists. The analysis begins with a juxtaposition of positivist and realist foundations. Next, I will trace the methodology debate that has unfolded in the U.S., examining in what ways it reflects these foundational assumptions. Over the last number of years, I demonstrate, qualitative methodologists have engaged in philosophical hybridity, because they have drawn on realist concepts while continuing to adhere to an empiricist ontology. This kind of cherrypicking is a perilous strategy, and I suggest that methodologists examine their ontological assumptions, especially their views on causation. To do so, they need to engage critical realism. This exercise would benefit political science, because it would provide scholars with exciting new research possibilities. Moreover, critical realism is well-suited to support the discipline’s central quest: gaining insight into the world by using few examined cases to draw inferences to larger sets of unexamined cases.
A qualitative method refers to the way of studying the social and political world that seeks to understand the meaning underlying an intention, action, object or phenomenon. In Political Science research, qualitative methods are usually contrasted with quantitative methods, which typically deal with large amount of data, using surveys and statistical methods, with the aim of establishing causal relationships between social phenomena. Given such differences, qualitative and quantitative methods have usually been conceived as two mutually exclusive modes of generating and analysing data. In this chapter, we challenge these assumptions, but argue that the most important distinction between different methods of analyses relates to the ontological and epistemological position they rely on, rather than the type of data they seek to analysis. We also outline examples of the use of qualitative methods in Political Science research to show that such methods cannot be associated with an 'anything goes approach'
The Social Sciences: The Root and Route of Political Science
The International Journal of Humanities and Social Studies (IJHSS), 2017
The social science has generally been regarded as a category of science that accommodates solely the disciplines which study Man in relation to his social environment for the purpose of formulating laws, generalisations and more importantly to make predictions on the future actions of Man. Distinct as it is from the other category of science i.e. the pure science which accommodates disciplines that study inanimate objects, the social science as one out of the two categories of science is yet to have a universally accepted number of fields of study that comprises it. But for the sake of this paper, the six major social science disciplines were identified and treated accordingly - Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology and Geography. These fields of study as at today can arguably be said to have developed to an appreciable level. Nevertheless, their development, in particular political science, is tied to the other social science disciplines. This paper therefore takes a critical look at the origin of some of the concepts, theories, scholars etc. in political science from the five social science disciplines mentioned above, the present status of political science; as well as the pathway the discipline is following. In this research paper, it was discovered that political science indeed has its root in the other five social science disciplines. But as touching the direction of political science, the discipline, based on the dynamic nature of Man and social problems, would dwell more on the interdisciplinary approach in order to have a holistic understanding of them, be able to make predictions, solve and if possible, control and forestall the unacceptable actions and occurrence of the former and latter respectively. The historical and comparative approaches were adopted in the course of this study with secondary sources of qualitative data as part of the research methodology.