SOCIAL SCIENCES METHODOLOGY: A CRITIQUE
Charles François (2004). SOCIAL SCIENCES METHODOLOGY: A CRITIQUE, International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, 2(2): 3077.
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(2) |
| ID | ◀ 3077 ▶ |
| Object type | Human sciences, Methodology or model |
M. MARUYAMA criticizes in the following terms some methods used in contemporary social sciences:
- “During the 2nd half of the 20th Century, social sciences and psychology have taken a course which, while attaining considerable results, built a skewed orientation in their theories and methodologies:
- “1. The classificational logic which became dominant separated rather than related various aspects of our ways to organize knowledge , aesthetic preferences, concepts of what is respectable and moral, composition, choice of scientific theories, etc…
- “2. Disciplinary and subdisciplinary inbreeding not only confined the researchers in fragmented niches of knowledge, but also amplified the peculiarity of the theories and methodologies of each niche;
- “3. The ideology of controlled variables nurtured the habit of ignoring the wider context;
- “4. Formalized and standardized methods of analysis , made easier bycomputer programs , fostered blind faith in and reliance on the ”magic box“ computer to the extent that many of the researchers lost their habit to use theirbrain to think, analyse or interpret the data directly o raise questions regarding the nature and applicability of specific computer programs they use;
- “5. Data collection became formalized and standardized, and many of the researchers lost direct touch with raw experience , to the extend of not trusting one's own observation and accepting only the measurements filtered through instruments;
- “6. General theorists who rose as a reaction against specialization tended to have an aversion to specifics, and to look for superficial analogies and far-fetched similarities with a priori asssumption of universality and propensity to wishful homogeneization;
- “7. Some general theorists used ad hoc mathematical models which were either too simplistic or artificially complicated;
- “8. Remedial attempts of interdisciplinary programs ended up either with a haphazard collage or a bazar shopping for hunting and gathering of those ideas, filtered to take home which fitted what was inbred in the home niche. The interbreeding failed”.
MARUYAMA, who has a wide experience of living in a number of different cultures , (just as this editor) proposes some remedies:
- “A solution is outbreeding . One has to go out from the ingroup niche, get the feet wet and hands dirty with raw and contextualexperience . Observational ability for details and contexts must be regained. Relations which escape standardized data collection and instrument measurements must be recaptured by using one's senses and brain . One must also step in several other niches , learn their theories and methodologies, and create new ones on their ground”.
In his paper, the Japanese author gives “examples of the current state of what he calls
- “the art of relationalogy, outbreeding and contextual experiencing”(1998, p. 91-108)