[Interpretationandmethods] How To Do Interpretive Social Science.

[wjkellpro at aol.com]

Hi All!

After re-reading my post of 7-7-08, I must say that Patrick’s critique of it is based on a misstatement of what it is about.  It suggests a three step way of conducting an authentic interpretive social science study.  The three steps are 1) fact gathering; 2) interpreting the reasons for the actions under study; and, 3) appraising, or evaluating, the gradient of rationality manifested in 1 and 2.  About this,



Patrick wrote:

Bill asks "[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" but the subsequent elaboration doesn't actually  

answer that question! Instead, it answers the parallel question "was  

it rational for GB to have ordered the preemptive strike on Iraq?"



Actually, the message says nothing about answers, because its about methods.  My next sentence is:  "How would this study be structured?  That is, how would one plan to both approach the study, and later present it, say, for publication?"



Once the facts are established, and the reasons for Bush’s order have been interpreted therefrom, the next step is evaluation.



Bill Wrote:

"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.  …



Whether my study of GB would come to a similar conclusion or not, [about Bush’s rationality] 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=2 0for meanings of which they may not be aware, or may not state.  Then appraise the mix for its degree of rationality under the circumstances."



Also, check out my earlier post on IT Governance.  Its another model of how to do a complete interpretive social science study.  (No answers, just a model method.)



Social Science in Current History.
In my opinion, social science methodology is in a transitionary period.  The old mechanistic, causal model, based in 19th Century physics, is on the wane.  That model dominated social science for most of the 20th Century.  One of its pillars comes from the distinction David Hume made, over 200 years ago, between the "is" and the "ought."  This has also come to be known as the "fact/valu
e" distinction.  



In social science, this distinction shows up as that between "explanation" and "evaluation."  Patrick seems to be a proponent of that view, in the excellent company of Max Weber, among others.



One of Polanyi’s most significant contributions to the understanding of social science methodology is his demonstration of the delusional character of that distinction in both the natural and the social sciences.  The notion that explanation is "value neutral" is an instance of social scientists misunderstanding what they actually do in social science.  

Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to perpetuate this self-delusion by teaching it to grad students.  No social science explanation is possible, much less complete, without numerous evaluations at every step in the process.  Might as well do it openly.



So, what does anybody think about that?


Bill Kelleher

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.cddc.vt.edu/pipermail/interpretationandmethods/attachments/20080709/4fb90189/attachment.html