Description
Read the following then summarize these chapter 300 words each.
Creswell, Chapters 1, 2, & 3
Neuman, Chapters 1, & 2
based on readings answer these questions
- Is Social Research always right? Can it answer all the questions? Explain with specific examples.
- 800-850 words then reply two two students.
Response to Ali
The definition of right assumes there is a wrong, which many could argue these definitions are up to the discretion of the individual. When it comes to answering, ‘is social science always right?’, I believe it depends, but I think the way the induvial interprets it is up to that individual’s discretion of right and wrong. I think social science is trustworthy to learn from because of the thorough, intense, and rigorous process social science research goes through before publication in a scientific journal. Within the scientific community, there are norms of universalism, disinterestedness, communalism, honesty, and organized skepticism (Neuman, 2013). Still, it is crucial to remember that not everyone reading, interpreting, and making decisions based on the research is a part of this community. Instead, they are learning from the scientific community and making informed decisions based on what they find.
There is a plethora of accessible information and studies offered by social science researchers that can look at a similar question and end with varied responses in today’s day and age. One can see this in the case of research into childcare. Wrigley and Derby found that paid childcare is safe yet found that center-based care is safer than private home care facilities (Neuman, p. 1). Bridges et al. found that center-based care shows improved reading and mathematical skills in children, yet an increased effect of social behavioral methods (Neuman, p. 1). Sosinsky et al. found that nonprofit agnostic centers were better quality than for-profit religious-based centers (Neuman, p. 2). All these studies investigate childcare from different angles. Parents trying to make the right decision for their children could feel overwhelmed with the abundance of information and find some of the studies offensive to their own preconceived beliefs or backgrounds. One family might be offended by Sosinsky’s research and discredit it because they grew up in a religion and want their child to grow up around that religion. After reading Wrigley and Derby’s research, another family might feel like terrible parents because they know their economic standing cannot afford the safer childcare option for their child. Because of the plethora of information, laypeople to the social science field might apply their personal experiences as superior to that of researched, peer reviewed, and published studies. Or, even worse, the laypeople might know the better option, and uncontrollable outside forces cannot offer what they believe would be the best option based on research. There is also the challenge that within the public, the scientific literacy rate is low. Based on the 2020 US Census, 36% of citizens in the United States have a college degree. I would argue then that 36% of citizens in the US could accurately understand, evaluate, and interpret social scientific research to decide if it is right or wrong. Yet, I think that people of all levels can always learn from social science research, better understanding the world around them.
I think social science can answer many, if not all, questions humans can imagine. The individual needs to educate themselves in a field before assuming a question has not yet been answered. Research problems and questions need to come from a void in current research, an area there are existing gaps, or opportunities to reevaluate neglected topics (Creswell, Chapter 1). With the abundance of available research, it is critical that a researcher considers the added value of their work to the field and how society might benefit from the knowledge. Otherwise, taking a step back to refine the research question further or approach the problem from a new angle might be necessary not to repeat what research already exists
Response to T. Gu
Right is a difficult word to define as it is often construed by personal experience, beliefs, and values. Questions addressed via social science research inherently are those that do not have a right or wrong answer. These arent mathematical problems that can be solved with one answer. What we do know is that social science research is designed based on the realities and biases of the researcher(s), despite approaches one might take to reduce such effects. Social realities are perceived differently by different people which affects the way in which an observed phenomenon is interpreted.
Our individual paradigms, ontologies, and epistemologies are united like the pieces of a kaleidoscope; any shift in one of the three aspects (a turn in the kaleidoscope) produces a new view in how we explore and understand the world. Without explicit thought or recognition, these three aspects are hidden in our daily lives.
Take, for example, the two opposing (for the sake of simplicity) constructs in how the government should interact with the lives of its citizens to support economic growth. This leads to very different approaches to addressing a social and economic problem. Liberals might support greater government intervention to improve public programs, in turn, supporting job creation, local economies, and well-being. Conservatives might support lowering taxes as they believe it provides more disposable income allowing individuals to spend money and support businesses. Neither one of these is a right or a wrong approach.
Further, social science research does not study objects, but rather, subjects. Subjects have their own personal experience, beliefs, and values that govern their behaviors of which may change over time. As contexts change so do social science research findings. The United States is much different today than it was 300 years ago or even only 50 years ago. Research regarding gender roles from today and years ago would likely produce dramatically different findings.
Social science cannot answer all the questions, but this comes back to what we consider right. I believe that social science can shed light on any social phenomenon, but the depth of the findings and extent to which the research is useful changes. A social science project, looking at addressing community stewardship of coral reefs in Indonesia, cannot be applied to the Philippines or even any community in Indonesia. Social science is dependent on local contexts unlike gravity, which is the same in Indonesia and the Philippines. Also by the time social science findings are interpreted, the study has essentially studied recent past happenings and their relationships. What social science cant do is provide answers for the future. Although I would argue that social sciences can speculate a phenomenon in the future based on analysis of past findings.
Imagine a student learning to read. This student has all of the environmental advantages: an involved family, exposure to a lot of literature, diverse experiences to promote background knowledge, and excellent classroom instruction. However, this student does not learn to read. In this case, social science research that might examine the components necessary to become a good reader would not be able to identify that the student has a neurological difference. This simple example shows that social sciences might not be able to illuminate all of the factors contributing to some phenomenon (broad or narrow).
Environmental challenges are far more than technical problems. They require equal emphasis of the natural and social sciences in order to find technically sound and politically savvy approaches. For example, no matter how complete and thorough ones understanding of the social environment, answering the question how can the New England groundfish stock be rebuilt? is not feasible without adequate hard science data. On the flip side, this question could not be answered merely through the natural sciences. Instead, a socially acceptable and biologically appropriate strategy is likely to be the most effective.
