Applying Core Debates in Political Science week 1
Literature lecture 1
How many approaches in the social sciences? An epistemological introduction (chapter of book) -
Porta & Keating
Paradigms in the social sciences
A key aspect of a paradigm is that it is widely accepted by the entire community of scientists working
within a particular discipline. In political science there is no such thing. Opinions on the status of social
science vary: some argue it is pre-paradigmatic, still searching for unifying principles; others claim it is
post-paradigmatic, having moved beyond a specific modernist framework. Some believe it is
non-paradigmatic, recognizing the impossibility of a single dominant approach, while others see it as
multiparadigmatic, with multiple paradigms coexisting, either in conflict or indifference. Some social
scientists focus specifically on this issue, specializing in the philosophy of social science and
epistemology.
What can we know and how? Ontologies and epistemologies in the social sciences
ONTOLOGY
Ontology concerns the nature of what we study, focusing on the object of investigation. In the natural
sciences, debates often revolve around whether categories, like species, exist independently in nature
(realism) or are human-made constructs (nominalism). In social sciences, these debates are more
pronounced, questioning whether social phenomena like class, gender, or ethnicity have an independent
existence outside human interpretation. Methodological individualism argues that only individuals are
"real" objects of study, with larger social categories being mere constructs. This perspective underpins
many rational choice approaches, although it is not universally accepted.
EPISTEMOLOGY
Epistemology, as defined by Klein (2005), is the study of the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge,
focusing on how we justify what we know beyond mere belief. In natural sciences, shared standards of
evidence and logic prevail, but in social sciences, these standards are debated. Some social scientists seek
objective evidence similar to natural sciences, while others, particularly anthropologists, view myths and
beliefs as valid knowledge. Myths are seen not just as falsehoods to be debunked, but as important social
data influencing behavior. Social science itself can also perpetuate myths. Certain theories can be seen as
myths, with other theories debunking them.
, Positivism, as represented by thinkers like Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim, holds that the social sciences
are similar to the physical sciences, with an objective reality existing independently of the observer.
Researchers are expected to describe and analyze this reality without influencing it, relying on systematic
rules and empirical research.
Neo-positivism and post-positivism, while still recognizing an objective reality, accept that it is only
imperfectly knowable. They modify the positivist emphasis on causal laws, acknowledging that some
phenomena may only follow probabilistic patterns. Critical realism, a form of post-positivism, argues that
while a real material world exists, our understanding of it is socially conditioned and subject to
reinterpretation. Some underlying mechanisms may be unobservable but are still real and significant.
Social constructionism, as explained by Hacking (1999), asserts that while the physical world exists, our
classifications of it are not dictated by reality but are convenient ways to represent it. Theories are seen as
partial perspectives that should be compared for their explanatory power rather than being evaluated by
their correspondence to an objective reality.
Interpretivism goes further, stressing that objective and subjective meanings are deeply intertwined. It
focuses on understanding the meanings that motivate human actions rather than applying universal laws.
The concept of the "double hermeneutic," introduced by Giddens (1976), highlights how social scientists
interpret social actors' interpretations, which then feed back into society, influencing behavior and
potentially altering relationships over time.
Literature lecture 1
How many approaches in the social sciences? An epistemological introduction (chapter of book) -
Porta & Keating
Paradigms in the social sciences
A key aspect of a paradigm is that it is widely accepted by the entire community of scientists working
within a particular discipline. In political science there is no such thing. Opinions on the status of social
science vary: some argue it is pre-paradigmatic, still searching for unifying principles; others claim it is
post-paradigmatic, having moved beyond a specific modernist framework. Some believe it is
non-paradigmatic, recognizing the impossibility of a single dominant approach, while others see it as
multiparadigmatic, with multiple paradigms coexisting, either in conflict or indifference. Some social
scientists focus specifically on this issue, specializing in the philosophy of social science and
epistemology.
What can we know and how? Ontologies and epistemologies in the social sciences
ONTOLOGY
Ontology concerns the nature of what we study, focusing on the object of investigation. In the natural
sciences, debates often revolve around whether categories, like species, exist independently in nature
(realism) or are human-made constructs (nominalism). In social sciences, these debates are more
pronounced, questioning whether social phenomena like class, gender, or ethnicity have an independent
existence outside human interpretation. Methodological individualism argues that only individuals are
"real" objects of study, with larger social categories being mere constructs. This perspective underpins
many rational choice approaches, although it is not universally accepted.
EPISTEMOLOGY
Epistemology, as defined by Klein (2005), is the study of the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge,
focusing on how we justify what we know beyond mere belief. In natural sciences, shared standards of
evidence and logic prevail, but in social sciences, these standards are debated. Some social scientists seek
objective evidence similar to natural sciences, while others, particularly anthropologists, view myths and
beliefs as valid knowledge. Myths are seen not just as falsehoods to be debunked, but as important social
data influencing behavior. Social science itself can also perpetuate myths. Certain theories can be seen as
myths, with other theories debunking them.
, Positivism, as represented by thinkers like Comte, Spencer, and Durkheim, holds that the social sciences
are similar to the physical sciences, with an objective reality existing independently of the observer.
Researchers are expected to describe and analyze this reality without influencing it, relying on systematic
rules and empirical research.
Neo-positivism and post-positivism, while still recognizing an objective reality, accept that it is only
imperfectly knowable. They modify the positivist emphasis on causal laws, acknowledging that some
phenomena may only follow probabilistic patterns. Critical realism, a form of post-positivism, argues that
while a real material world exists, our understanding of it is socially conditioned and subject to
reinterpretation. Some underlying mechanisms may be unobservable but are still real and significant.
Social constructionism, as explained by Hacking (1999), asserts that while the physical world exists, our
classifications of it are not dictated by reality but are convenient ways to represent it. Theories are seen as
partial perspectives that should be compared for their explanatory power rather than being evaluated by
their correspondence to an objective reality.
Interpretivism goes further, stressing that objective and subjective meanings are deeply intertwined. It
focuses on understanding the meanings that motivate human actions rather than applying universal laws.
The concept of the "double hermeneutic," introduced by Giddens (1976), highlights how social scientists
interpret social actors' interpretations, which then feed back into society, influencing behavior and
potentially altering relationships over time.
