interpretation & realism m. kremakova & e. page philosophies of social science research week...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
INTERPRETATION & REALISM
M. Kremakova & E. PagePhilosophies of social science researchWeek 9, 4th March, 2015
1
![Page 2: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
RESPONSE TO LAST WEEK’S LECTURE: REPORTS OF THE DEATH OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED• Big Data are cool, but they are just a tool: data don't speak for themselves. Danger of rampant reductionist rationality
• Role of social science? >>> Interpretivist and realist approaches:
• Good social science goes beyond method: • explain and understand through theories, vocabularies, conceptual
framework, lenses, viewpoints, but also:• Provoke, disrupt, dismantle: find surprising comparisons, show big
picture, deeper and long-term (in-depth, longitudinal) research, create brand new concepts, new ways of seeing the world, expose hidden inequalities, open up new horizons, discuss new possibilities. Role for both “blue skies" or "useless" social research (e.g. IAS) and empirical, even with smaller datasets.
•No rigid division between commercial and academic. Instead: collaboration; flow of researchers; mutual learning; competition; power struggle; public debate. [downsides]
2
![Page 3: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
RESPONSE TO LAST WEEK’S LECTURE: REPORTS OF THE DEATH OF SOCIAL SCIENCES ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED Source: Wikimedia Commons
3
![Page 4: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The Hollis Matrix
Systems 'Games’
Agents Actors
Holism
Individualism
Explanation Understanding
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
4
![Page 5: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Hollis Matrix: Explanation
Function-alism
RationalChoice
Holism
Individualism
Explanation Understanding
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
5
![Page 6: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The Hollis Matrix: Understanding
Social rules
Hermen-eutics
Holism
Individualism
Explanation Understanding
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
6
![Page 7: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The Hollis Matrix: Atomism
Rational Choice
Hermen-eutics
Holism
Individualism
Explanation Understanding
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
7
![Page 8: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Hollis Matrix: Holism
Structur-alism
Social rule-
following
Agents Actors
Holism
Individualism
Explanation Understanding
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
8
![Page 9: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Hollis Matrix
Systems 'Games’
Agents Actors
Holism
Individualism
Explanation Understanding
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
9
![Page 10: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
“Does the way in which you think about your discipline place it near to, or far from, the natural sciences?”
For seminar discussion…
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
10
![Page 11: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
POSITIVISM>…
Positivism Hermeneutics/Interpretivism
Realism, Rationalism
Scientist: Legislator
Monologue
Objectivity
Explanation
Observation
Objective observer
Knowledge as Truth
Discovering facts
Truth: Singular (universal)
11
![Page 12: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
POSITIVISM>HERMENEUTICS>…Positivism Hermeneutics/
InterpretivismRealism, Rationalism
Scientist: Legislator
Scientist: Interpreter
Monologue Dialogue
Objectivity Valid Subjectivities
Explanation Understanding
Observation Embodiment
Objective observer
Partial participant
Knowledge as Truth
Knowledge as Power
Discovering facts
Creating interpretations
Truth: Singular (universal)
Truth: Plural (multiple aspects)
12
![Page 13: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
HERMENEUTICS (1): SOCIAL INQUIRY AS INTERPRETATION Social inquiry is seen to be about understanding rather than explanation (Weber, Winch) "Social relations really exist only in and through the ideas which are
current in society; or alternatively, that social relations fall into the same logical category as do relations between ideas." (Winch 1988)
“the social sciences are concerned with the nature of meaningful behaviour, that is, that behaviour that is "specifically human“ (Winch 1988)
A number of different philosophical movements are associated with the position German hermeneutics (e.g. Gadamer), Phenomenological approaches (e.g. Schütz), Ordinary language analysis (associated with Wittgenstein)
Gadamer deepens interpretative inquiry with his emphasis upon the historicity of understanding Focuses on prejudice and the unification of science and hermeneutics
Attention to language as a tool of interpretation
13
![Page 14: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
HERMENEUTICS (1): SOCIAL INQUIRY AS INTERPRETATION
14
Hans-Georg Gadamer
![Page 15: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
HERMENEUTICS (2): SOCIAL INQUIRY ≠ NATURAL SCIENCE Science is about generalisations; social inquiry is about particulars,
but it can access regularities by investigating “the nature of the rule according to which judgements of identity are made […] Such judgements are intelligible only relatively to a given mode of human behaviour, governed by its own rules." Winch 1988:84
Human behaviour governed by conventions and rule-following (neither laws, nor chaos). Human community is source of meaning. Science studies a domain of objects lacking intrinsic meaning – but in social science, the actors’ own meanings and understandings are important
Social inquiry is NOT complete until we have understood WHY something was done; (causes, reasons, motives, imperfect logic, false consciousness, adaptive preferences, beliefs, ultimate concerns, duty, obligation, love, power structures…)
Human beings are constituted in language => all social inquiry has a hermeneutic aspect (i.e. understand society and social action “as text”)
Prediction: never fully deterministic. Falsification doesn't work the same way as it does in the natural sciences. Rules have exceptions.
“Trying too hard to be objective” is bad: methodological self-alienation
15
![Page 16: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
HERMENEUTICS (3): GADAMER ‘Anti-foundationalism’ (favours historical/genealogical
explanations) inter-subjective nature of understanding, inter-
subjectivity, Being, authenticity, fore-structure, presuppositions, prejudice, temporality and history
Knowledge as the willingness to learn, not as the will to power Opposed to the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice He did not believe that Reason can provide its own foundations.
“I think, therefore I am” – not really. Thinking, I cannot not be and be for (and by) others
Science is based in a lifeworld that is not a product of Reason: what we understand as reason is a product of our lifeworld
Gadamer is not a critic of the products of science, but of its self-understanding and the misuse of that self-understanding
16
![Page 17: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
HERMENEUTICS (4): CRITICISMS OF GADAMER General conservatism of interpretation
The model of science and methodology
The problem of power.
If actors could have done otherwise, how do we know when they are doing otherwise (as an aspect of will) or merely appearing to do so as a consequence of our failures to understand the rules they are following?
What is the role of an explanatory undertaking in the social sciences?
17
![Page 18: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
CRITIQUES OF HERMENEUTICAL/ INTERPRETATIVE APPROACHES Limits of hermeneutical understanding?
Systematically distorted communication and failures of understanding
Aim of critical theory is emancipation
But, who is to educate the educators?
Gadamer’s critique of science is naive, but his critique of positivism as alienation is profound
18
![Page 19: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
REALISM (1): A THIRD WAY? Critical realists:
•acknowledge similarities with the natural sciences, but try to retain the grasp on interpretation of meanings. They oppose both positivism and naïve empiricism on the one side, and relativism and anti-naturalism, on the other.
•acknowledge that the existence of human agency and the limited possibilities for experiment in social science make it difficult to locate and identify these structures.
• believe that anti-naturalism in social inquiry is based upon a false conception of science.
19
![Page 20: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
POSITIVISM>HERMENEUTICS>REALISMPositivism Hermeneutics/
InterpretivismRealism, Rationalism
Scientist: Legislator
Scientist: Interpreter
Monologue Dialogue
Objectivity Valid Subjectivities
Explanation Understanding
Observation Embodiment Combines both, but
Objective observer
Partial participant opposes both extremes
Knowledge as Truth
Knowledge as Power
(not as easy as it sounds)
Discovering facts
Creating interpretations
Truth: Singular (universal)
Truth: Plural (Multiple aspects)
20
![Page 21: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
REALISM (2)
“Neither positivism nor hermeneutics can offer rational criteria for the choice of concepts”. (Outhwaite 1983 Concept formation in social science)
Realism is a transcendental project concerned to establish how the world must be for science as an activity to be possible
Philosophy is the self-understanding of science concerned with the conditions for the production of knowledge.
Distinction between epistemological and ontological realism.
21
![Page 22: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
REALISM (3)
Epistemological “A natural account of the way in which scientific theories succeed
each other - say, the way in which Einstein’s Relativity succeeded Newton’s Universal Gravitation - is that a partially correct/ partially incorrect account of a theoretical object - say the gravitational field, or the metric structure of space-time, or both - is replaced by a better account of the same object or objects. But if these objects don’t really exist at all, then it is a miracle that a theory which speaks of gravitational action at a distance successfully predicts phenomena; it is a miracle that a theory which speaks of curved space-time successfully predicts phenomena.” (Putnam 1978: 19)
Ontological How must the world of physical objects be, for science to be
possible?Or:since we know science is possible, what does this fact tell us about the world we live in?
There DO exist ‘real objects’ outside particular theoretical statements of them, even though we may never grasp those objects except in fallible and historically changing constructions
22
![Page 23: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
REALISM (4)
“strong programme” of realism: Roy Bhaskar Rationalism and realism both accept that truth exists; but diverge in
the way truth is to be found: rationalists have an a priory theory e.g. mechanisms, structures, naturalist worldview; realists seek “explanatory power”
Differences between rationalism and realism: rationalism has an uneasy relationship with agency (Hollis: “rational action is its own explanation”, doesn’t explain how there can be competing rational alternatives to a given situation)
Realism vs ‘empirical realism’ (Bhaskar) (emphasis on sense experiences) and ‘transcendental realism’ ( no systematic connection between science and the world)
What is “The Real”? Includes mechanisms, events and experiences. Not the same as “the actual” (events and experiences) or “the empirical” (experiences alone)
Experimental intervention greatly restricted in the social sciences Do we abandon empirical testability? No.
23
![Page 24: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
REALISM (4)
24
![Page 25: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
REALISM (5): REALIST CRITIQUES OF POSITIVISM Empiricists, it is argued, are concerned with the mere
association of events. We want to know how the events are associated; that is, to
identify causal mechanisms that operate as real forces with the character of necessity
Realists make a distinction between the real and the actual Real effects need not be actualised
Realism as a philosophy of science is unstable between epistemological realism and more pragmatic approaches
25
![Page 26: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
REALISM (6): IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE Realism is concerned to establish that scientists act by intervening in the world and manipulating the operation of its structures to make a difference in the production of their effects.
This implies that social science is about objects which are also actors and this must distinguish social inquiry from natural science.
Realism in the social sciences offers no means of establishing the reality of social structures
26
![Page 27: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
REALISM (6): IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE
27
![Page 28: INTERPRETATION & REALISM M. Kremakova & E. Page Philosophies of social science research Week 9, 4 th March, 2015 1](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649eb25503460f94bb99b6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhaskar, Roy (1999). The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Routledge, London and New York, third edition.
Big Data. Wikipedia (consulted 3/3/2015)
Outhwaite, William (1983) Concept formation in social science. Routledge, London.
Outhwaite, William. (1986) Understanding social life: The method called Verstehen. Jean Stroud, East Sussex.
Winch, Peter (1990) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. Routledge, London.
28