Summary
Summary SPER: Sociology, Philosophy and Ethics of Research
- Course
- Institution
Summary of SPER lecture, literature + literature questions
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
dwaldorf
Content preview
Summary SPERCollege 1
Paradigm/theoretical framework/lend/epistemology/research methodologies
Paradigm: the way that we look at knowledge, at the world. There are different paradigms in the
academic world and we will go through some of them in this course. We will talk about the way they
conflict and criticize each other. Paradigms:
- Positivist
- Post-positivist
- Anti-positivist: constructivist, interpretative/hermeneutic,
critical/emancipatory/transformative and pragmatic.
Paradigm: our idea of how we should do science. What is knowledge? What do we know? What can
we know? What kind of methodology can we use to get knowledge?
Often implicit to a paradigm is:
- A belief about the nature of knowledge/knowledge acquisition
- A methodology
- Criteria for validity and “the truth”
For you thesis you have to think about the paradigm you want to work from. The thesis struggle is to
match a paradigm with a methodology and a certain subject/topic.
Paradigms: Language commonly associated with major research paradigms:
Positivist/post- Interpretivist/constructivist Transformative Pragmatic
positivist
Experimental Naturalistic Critical theory Consequences of
actions
Quasi-experimental Phenomenological Neo-Marxist Problem-centered
Correlational Hermeneutic Feminist Pluralistic
Reductionism Interpretivist Critical-race-theory Real-world practice
oriented
Theory verification Ethnographic Freirean Mixed models
Causal comparative Multiple participant Participatory
meanings
Determination Social and historical Emancipatory
constructions
Normative Theory generation Advocacy
Symbolic interaction Grand narrative
Empowerment issue
oriented
Change-oriented
Interventionist
Queer theory
Race specific
Political
Paradigms, methods and tools:
, Paradigm Methods (primarily) Data collection tools
(examples)
Positivist/postpositivist Quantitative “although Experiments, quasi-
qualitative methods can be experiments, tests, scales
used within this paradigm,
quantitative methods tend to
be predominant”
Interpretivist/constructivist Qualitative methods Interviews, observations,
predominate although document reviews, visual data
quantitative methods may also analysis
be utilized
Transformative Qualitative methods with Diverse range of tools –
quantitative and mixed particular need to avoid
methods. Contextual and discrimination. For example:
historical factors described, sexism, racism and
especially as they relate to homophobia
oppression
Pragmatic Qualitative and/or quantitative May include tools from both
methods may be employed. positivist and interpretivist
Methods are matched to the paradigms. For example
specific questions and purpose interviews, observations and
of the research. testing and experiments
The thesis struggle:
,What is this thing called “science”?
How, if at all, can we distinguish scientific knowledge from other types of knowledge?
How, if at all, can we distinguish between good and better scientific knowledge?
How, if at all, can we produce better scientific knowledge?
How, if at all possible, can we produce knowledge that is ethical?
Are we responsible for the knowledge we produce, including its unintended effect?
What is, and ought to be, the relationship between science and the political organization of society?
Philosophy of science: epistemology vs metaphysics
The Greeks :
Plato (428-348 BCE): Plato divides the world into two worlds. The world of ideas and the world of
sensory perceptions. We cannot obtain real knowledge by sensory perceptions, we have to think of
the ideas. Observation is not the most important when you want to obtain knowledge.
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was against this idea. Observation is crucial, according to him.
Empirical studies were required for obtaining knowledge, according to Aristotle. The method for
Aristotle was careful, peaceful observation: no interaction. Use logic as a reasoning form. This has
been the basic way to “do” science for a long time. The main aim and also method was to carefully
observe to obtain the main laws.
Islamic contribution:
The 8th to the 14th centuries were the golden centuries for the Islamic world. They used experiments
in science. This was a very important introduction. This complemented the way Aristoteles did
science.
- Ibn Sina of Avicenna was een medicus, geoloog, paleontoloog, natuurkundige, psycholoog,
wiskundige, wetenschapper, filosoof en alchemist van Perzische afkomst.
- Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham was een Arabisch astronoom en wiskundige.
- Abu Raihan Biruni of Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad Biruni was een Perzisch
wiskundige, natuurkundige, astronoom, geleerde, encyclopedieschrijver, filosoof, astroloog,
reiziger, historicus, drogist en onderwijzer.
Scientific revolution 1550-1700
It starts with Copernicus: hoe de aarde draait om z’n as in een dag en om de zon in een jaar. Galileo:
uses a telescope. Kepler introduces the idea that the earth turns in ovals? Vesalius: bloed wordt door
het hart door je lichaam gepompt. Newton: Newtonian worldview will be dominant for the next view
years.
17th century: rationalists vs empiricist
Bacon and Huygens are empiricists: the only way we can obtain knowledge is experience
Descartes is a rationalist: more philosophical. You have to think. Some things you can’t observe.
18th century: skepticism
- Hume (17-11-1776)
Skepticism: what can we know?
External world skepticism: how can we know that there is something at all if you are not experiencing
it?
, Why would past experiences give us certainty about what is to happen next?
The problem of causality: the causality is made in our head. It is theoretical. “when I cast my eye on
the known qualities of objects, I immediately discover that the relation of cause and effect depends
not in the least upon them”. In the empirical domain, necessity and inevitability do not exist. All
knowledge is fundamentally uncertain. Cause and effect do not exist independently of us.
Hume says we cannot infer the idea of causality from experience.
The problem of induction: there is no logically coherent reason that something that happened in the
past, will happen again. This is something we make up in our head. Dat de zon vandaag opkomt, zegt
eigenlijk op zichzelf niks over of de zon morgen opkomt. “There can be no demonstrative arguments
to prove, that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we
have had experience”. “It is impossible to demonstrate, that the course of nature must continue
uniformly the same, and that the future must be conformable to the past. What is possible can never
be demonstrated to be false; and ’tis possible the course of nature may change, since we can
conceive such a change.”
There is no rational justification for causality. We use induction every day and it is good that we do.
We use it on a daily basis and in science. It is just not logically rational. You can expect it, but it is
never sure that it will be.
What are the implications of Hume’s argument for science?
This makes us wonder, what at all is science? What is the nature of scientific knowledge? What are
the consequences of the authority of science?
Hume: all of our knowledge is fundamentally uncertain.
Book open the social sciences:
Chapter 1: Historical construction of the social sciences – 18 th century to 1945:
• Since 16th century, truth/knowledge
• Newton
• Descartes/dualism
• Progress
• Victory of natural sciences at beginning of 19 th century.
• 8, Universities, natural sciences, tensions between ‘sciences’
• 9-11, Birth of social sciences, positivism, Comte
• 19, Positivism, political science
• 28, this process takes place at same time as colonialism …
• 30-31, disciplines, areas of knowledge, epistemologies, categories, methods
Chapter 2: Debates within the social sciences. 1945-present
• 33, Three major changes (in world political structure)
• US superpower
• Baby boom
• University goes global
• 36, Consequences of these changes
• Validity of the distinctions among the Social sciences
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller dwaldorf. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.91. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now