“Rather than attempt to imitate the hard sciences, social scientists would be better off doing what they do best: thinking deeply about what prompts human beings to behave the way they do.”
This article prompts us ‘social scientists’ to do what good journalism does: explain and uncover the ‘why’ for certain events, trends and issues. I agree that rather than being stuck within the template of hard science, we need the flexibility to conduct research and uncover reason that accounts for the unpredictability and variance that human experience and interaction cause.
But, if there is a reason that social science has been trying to move toward a more structured approach, maybe instead of modeling this new approach just after hard science/hypothesis-based research, instead certain fields could reevaluate guidelines and come up with something that is more structured, but still makes sense for our field.
For example, in an article published last week, academic researchers found out that research conducted in the U.S. is more likely to have splashier, more dramatic results that have a higher likelihood of being incorrect. If there are common discrepancies in the field that can make our type of research overall look flawed, it may be a good reason to bring in more standardization. Again, ‘hard science’ probably isn’t the best place to start, but some aspects could be relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment