[Interpretationandmethods] What is The Right Way to do Interpretive Social Science?

[wjkellpro at aol.com]

Hi All!

 

Recently there has been some talk about how grad students can go about doing an interpretive social science study, so I thought I would toss this into the discussion for folks to consider.  I would like to know your opinions.  

 

Here is how I think a Polanyian interpretive social science would structure a scientific study of behavior.  

 

Suppose a graduate student or professional social scientist sets out to do an interpretive study of why George Bush (GB), acting as Commander-in-Chief, ordered the preemptive strike on Iraq, which has since resulted in the prolonged Iraq War.  How would this study be structured?  That is, how would one plan to both approach the study, and later present it, say, for publication?

 

To make the problem I have in mind clearer, I will suggest the structure that I envision for such a study.  I would plan on three parts: fact-finding, interpretation, and evaluation.  This is the three part structure I find in Polanyi’s book, The Study of Man (SM).

 

Fact-finding.

What were the relevant circumstances in which GB acted?  This would probably start with the 911 Commission Report.  Other historic sources would include narratives from the press and other media.  There are already numerous books and journal articles alleging facts that might be relevant for portraying the factual circumstances, including the administration’s response to the 911 attack.  

 

Using these sources, I would try to pin down the sequence of GB’s actions leading up to the initial invasion.  I might also use the Freedom of Information Act to learn what I could about White House meetings. I would try to interview people close to GB, and GB himself.  

 

Interpretation.

Once I have a clear record of GB’s actions leading up to the order to invade, I would try to interpret what his reasons were for making the order.  All the above sources could be reviewed for what they say about his reasons, including his speeches, and my personal interview of him, and those close to him.  

 

As a result of this research, I would expect to have: a) his reasons as stated in his own words, b) his reasons as stated in the opinion of those close to him, and c) speculations about his unstated reasons as stated in all the above sources, except himself.  

 

Given a long list of reasons, I would wonder about the weight of each in his mind.  Did he really believe the WMD story, or that an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection existed?  Or, did he covertly covet Iraq’s oil?  Or, did he use the nation’s military to avenge his father’s honor, in the belief that Saddam contemplated the assignation of GB’s dad?  Or, did he see the 911 attack as somehow providing him with an opportunity to spread democracy in the Middle East?  What else could he have been thinking?

 

 

Evaluation.

Polanyi points out that social scientists generally see themselves as trying to understand and explain human behavior; even if they are merely gathering and reporting statistics, they are concerned with human behavior.  He criticizes this self-understanding.  He sees it as containing the unexamined assumption that they know what is “human” in the term “human behavior.”  

 

He agrees with Aristotle that the defining characteristic of humans is their “rationality.”  But he defines that term more broadly than Aristotle does, so that it includes the vast tacit dimension of human thought.  He also shows that human thought strives for knowledge that it can hold with “universal intent.”  He sees this as a motive which includes a large degree of respect for other rational minds.  Indeed, such respect for others is a core element of human rationality.  It is a large part of the tacit dimension.  It is also a big departure from Aristotle’s thought about rationality.

 

Thus, to classify behavior as “human” requires far more thoughtfulness than is generally practiced in social science today.  If scientists are concerned with knowing the facts, or the truth, then they must address the question as to whether the conduct under study manifests the degree of rationality that would be sufficient to merit the classification “human behavior.”  This would include assessing the degree of concern, or respect, for the welfare of the people who could foreseeably be impacted by one’s behavior.

 

In other words, for Polanyi, every social science study of human behavior already entails an appraisal of that behavior as being rational enough to merit membership in the category “human.”  Such studies become statements of who we, as humans, are.  Through social science, we define ourselves.  But we are doing so thoughtlessly.  This is not responsible professional conduct. We are educating ourselves as to who we are, without rationally examining our methods.  This has moral consequences.  For the current practice of social science, everything people do qualifies as “human behavior.”  We abandon the use of reason at exactly the point where it is most needed.

 

So, for a Polanyian social science, one must ask how well GB’s behavior, and his reasons therefore, measure up to the level of human rationality.  To me this means I have to ask whether a rational person, or more exactly, a rational president, would have acted as GB did under the circumstances.  I would make this determination so as to more reasonably  classify GB’s conduct along a gradient of rationality, and measure its fit into the category of human behavior.  I.e., was it fully human, or some gradient less than that?

 

I know that this is unfamiliar territory for social science.  But it seems to me that Polanyi is right, and that this is what must be done.  Besides SM, he also models this three step approach in Personal Knowledge. There, he evaluates what natural scientists think of themselves as doing in the course of their professional work.  He shows that their self-understandings are full of false and irrational myths.  In other words, current natural science falls far short of its full potential for human rationality.  

 

Whether my study of GB would come to a similar conclusion about his degree of rationality or not, would depend on the facts and reasons that I settle on in the first two steps.

 

So, this is what I would advise grad students to consider as a proper interpretive social science method.  That is, establish the relevant facts, interpret these for the meanings that the actors understood for themselves, and check for meanings of which they may not be aware, or may not state.  Then appraise the mix for its degree of rationality under the circumstances, with a view to measuring its degree of human rationality.

 

Feedback?

 

Bill Kelleher

 

 

See my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:

http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20080707/eda99e2b/attachment-0001.html