Introduction to Value-Relevant and Normative Tradition in Philosophy of the Social Sciences

Year 2014, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 15 - 27, 30.12.2014

Ruhi Can Alkın , Ramazan Yelken

https://doi.org/10.18491/bijop.96819

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Methodology, which is one of the most important areas subjected by philosophy of the social sciences, determines the epistemological and ontological position of scientific practice. At this point, the current study proposes to critically analyze positivist epistemology in the social scientific practice while shedding light on the inevitable character of interpretivist methodology for this area. More specifically, study will illustrate the values and normative tradition in specific to research subjects and actors of social sciences. In doing so, study will assert that naturalistic approach, which focuses on cause and effect relations when examining social phenomena, will be shown as an inappropriate tradition in the social sciences in comparison to interpretivist methodology. On the other hand, understanding of “social science for the sake of society” instead of the idea of “social science for the sake of social science” will be examined.

Keywords

Philosophy of the social sciences, ontology, epistemology, positivism, interpretivism.

References

• Bauböck, R. (2008). Normative Political Theory and Empirical Research. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (eds. D. D. Porta &, M. Keating). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40-60.
• Cohen, G. A. (2003). Facts and Principles. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 31 (3), 211-245.
• George, A. L. & Bennet, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Gerring, J. & Yesnowitz, J. (2006). A Normative Turn in Political Science. Polity, 38 (1), 101-133.
• Goodfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Gillies, D. (1993). Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century: Four Central Themes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Hesse, M. (1978). Theory and Value in the Social Sciences. Action and Interpretation: Studies in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (eds. C. Hoowkway & P. Pettit). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-16.
• Homans, G. (1978). What Kind of a Myth is the Myth of a Value-Free Social Science. Social Science Quarterly, 58, 530-541.
• Kratochwil, F. (2008). Constructivism: What It is (Not) and How It Matters. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (eds. D. D. Porta &, M. Keating). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 80-98.
• Meehan, E. J. (1969). Value Judgment and Social Science, Homewood: The Dorsey Press.
• Moses, J. W. & Knutsen, T. (2012). Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Porta, D. D. & Keating, M. (2008). How Many Approaches in the Social Sciences? An Epistemological Introduction. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (eds. D. D. Porta &, M. Keating). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-39.
• Rabinow, P. & Suvillan, M. (1979). The Interpretive Turn: Emergence of an Approach. Interpretive Social Science (eds. P. Rabinow, & M. Suvillan. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1-21.
• Shapiro, I. (2002). Problems, Methods, and Other Theories in the Study of Politics, or What’s Wrong With Political Science and What to Do About It. Political Theory, 30 (4), 596-619.
• Venesson, P. (2008). Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective (eds. D. D. Porta &, M. Keating). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223-239.
• Winthrop, H. (1971). Some Relations between a Value-Free Sociology and Value-Oriented Sociologists. The American Sociologist, 6 (3), 261-262.