Realism and Complexity in Social Science

The author addresses the potential of a multiple-methods approach in human geography, an approach to social research which has received little explicit attention in the geographical literature to date. The relationship between epistemology and methodology is outlined, and the similarities and differences between quantitative and qualitative methods are described. Some problems surrounding subjectivity and objectivity in social research are also discussed. In addition, the relationship between methods and to whom the research is communicated is considered. It is hoped that the paper will stimulate future discussion both of the theoretical implications and of the practical use of a mixed-methods approach in human geography.

This paper explores the contribution that pragmatist philosophy can make to the way that we do research and teaching in human geography. It provides a historical overview of the key ideas in the tradition, their influence on the Chicago School of Sociology and community organizing, and the implications of this work for epistemological practice. The paper then looks at the variety of ways in which human geographers are using research as a means to engage in the world today, focusing in particular on the contributions of participatory action research (PAR), before making the case for ‘process pragmatism’ as a framework for doing this kind of research. To illustrate the potential of this approach, the paper outlines current research, teaching and organizing activity being undertaken by geographers at Queen Mary University of London. The paper suggests that pragmatism provides a theoretical and methodological foundation for research and teaching which can facilitate the creation of new publics, and can help to build power and democratic capacity with the aim of remaking the world.

Focus groups, originally used in fields such as marketing and consumer research, are rapidly gaining popularity as a research methodology in the social sciences. It is interesting to note that most of the scholarly work on focus groups continues to come from business rather than the social sciences. Few researchers have discussed the differing purposes and goals in social science and consumer research (Ospina, 1994; Moore, 1996). Furthermore, the literature on focus group research rarely utilizes social work knowledge of group dynamics or group facilitation skills. Rather, the literature on focus groups tends to give guidelines for leading groups, telling focus group facilitators what to do and what not to do in leading such groups. We believe that these guidelines, while generally helpful, can lead to rigidity on the part of focus group leaders. We suggest that, in social work research, focus group facilitators should use their knowledge of group dynamics and the values of individualization and empathy to modify focus group rules where appropriate. This paper describes part of a qualitative study of client/worker relationships in residential mental health settings. During the course of this research, group work principles came into conflict, at times, with recommended guidelines for focus group leaders. The paper illustrates how insights gleaned from group work theory and practice can enable a researcher to break focus group rules responsibly, thus bringing greater depth to the data gathered and allowing the researcher to be more sensitive to the needs of focus group participants.

The News of the Week article that reports on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questioning the need to fund social science research at the National Science Foundation is alarming and shortsighted (“Senate panel chair asks why NSF funds social sciences,” 12 May, p. [829][1]). Social science research is at the fundamental core of basic research and has much to contribute to the economic viability of the United States. Twenty years of direct and jointly funded social and ecosystem science research at Colorado State University's Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory has produced deep insights into environmental and societal impacts of political upheaval, land use, and climate change in parts of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Beyond greatly advancing our understanding of the coupled human-environmental system, the partnership of social and ecosystem science has brought scientists and decision-makers together to begin to develop solutions to difficult problems. Insights from the social sciences about the vulnerability, sustainability, and resilience of social and environmental systems have greatly increased our understanding of the complex interactions of the world on which we depend. The contributions of social and ecological science for data analyses associated with spatial relationships, transfer of goods and services, valuation, and decision-making processes have improved our understanding of how human activities are altering environmental systems worldwide. These findings have become the core of policy and development decisions used throughout the world. It is critical that the NSF support social science funding and that, as budget decisions are made, the social science allocation should move forward equally with increases as in other basic and applied research. Failure to do so will further hinder U.S. competitiveness in the future and will slow transfer of knowledge and usefulness to the public. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.312.5775.829a

For decades, traditional correlation analysis and regression models have been used in social science research. However, the development of machine learning algorithms makes it possible to apply machine learning techniques for social science research and social issues, which may outperform standard regression methods in some cases. Under the circumstances, this article proposes a methodological workflow for data analysis by machine learning techniques that have the possibility to be widely applied in social issues. Specifically, the workflow tries to uncover the natural mechanisms behind the social issues through a data-driven perspective from feature selection to model building. The advantage of data-driven techniques in feature selection is that the workflow can be built without so much restriction of related knowledge and theory in social science. The advantage of using machine learning techniques in modelling is to uncover non-linear and complex relationships behind social issues. The main purpose of our methodological workflow is to find important fields relevant to the target and provide appropriate predictions. However, to explain the result still needs theory and knowledge from social science. In this paper, we trained a methodological workflow with left-behind children as the social issue case, and all steps and full results are included.

This article reflects on six years of work that implemented various participatory research methods with young women linked to gangs in El Salvador. The reflection focuses on the fundamental role of emotions and trust in contexts marked by violence and social exclusion. From the Freirean perspective of popular education and the approaches of Haraway and Butler, it also analyzes how these participatory methodologies with an autobiographical focus contribute to the re-signification of identities, the construction of agency, and the creation of safe spaces for dialogue. Through methods such as the systematization of experiences, life narratives, and critical ethnography, not only was the complexity of the participants’ lived realities captured, but the investigative process also became a vehicle for empowerment and social transformation. This article highlights how the ethical management of emotions, combined with the construction of trust-based relationships and the use of an autobiographical approach in participatory methodologies, redefines research as a humanized and transformative practice in the study of stigmatized and excluded populations. The findings emphasize the recognition of the contribution participatory research makes in contexts of violence and exclusion for the design of public policies, programs, or reintegration strategies. This underscores the need to promote research lines and funding that advance such proposals from the social sciences, establishing them as key tools for structural transformation.

Historically, social research methodologies have been construed as being less significant in their contribution to social change. This perception emanates from those who view social research methodologies as an accessory to the natural sciences. Contrary to this view, this article, on the schooling experiences of children who have been left behind by their parents in Zimbabwe, is used to contribute to the debate. It seeks to present our experiences in the application of social research methodologies, including challenges and their contribution to social change. However, this change remains a contested issue in research because there is no consensus on how to measure it. The study followed a qualitative research approach, using an interpretive phenomenological study design. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select 12 secondary school children (12–18 years old). Data were constructed through two methods, interviews and document analysis. The overall finding of the study revealed that social sciences methodologies can make a contribution to social change. This was illustrated by the fact that when social methodological approaches were used, children were enabled to confidently express their lived experiences by creating a child-friendly environment such as child-centeredness, democratic participation and inclusivity. Consequently, the findings have shed some light on the way in which policy makers should develop policies with regard to left-behind children (LBC). On the basis of these findings, the article argues that social research methodologies can make a difference in social change, despite challenges that may emerge. The findings may have implications for social researchers and for our study. For example, the findings could minimise hermeneutics injustice by mediating what the marginalised groups, such as children, may express despite scepticism about their authenticity which is important for social change.

Addressing the policy challenges and opportunities of “Big data”

La investigación en las ciencias sociales sigue creciendo en el mundo académico, especialmente por parte de los estudiantes de Master y Doctorado a quienes se les pide redactar monografías y tesis que deban cumplir con los requisitos metodológicos. El propósito de este artículo es arrojar luz sobre la metodología de investigación en ciencias sociales, poner de relieve la investigación en sociología de la acción desde un enfoque psicosociológico y resaltar los obstáculos que dificultan su uso, especialmente cuando Se trata de valores. Por ello, se propone una explicación detallada de las etapas de investigación en las ciencias sociales, así como las dificultades relacionadas con la naturaleza del campo disciplinario sociológico para definir la posición objetiva que debe adoptar el investigador. Por lo tanto, se requiere distanciarse de los temas de estudio, especialmente cuando se trata de valores. Social science research continues to grow in the academic world, especially for master's students and doctoral students who are called upon to produce dissertations and theses that meet the methodological requirement. The purpose of this article is to shed light on social science research methodology and on research in the sociology of action as a psychosociological approach and the obstacles that hinder its use, especially when it is about values. To this end, a detailed explanation of the stages of research in the social sciences as well as the difficulties related to the nature of the sociological disciplinary field are put forward, in order to define the objective posture that the researcher must adopt. Distancing from the subjects of study is therefore required especially when it comes to values.

This special issue represents a rather erratic dialogue within sociological research. While social inequality has been an enduring focus in social research, it has commanded rather limited intellectual and political resources within the specialty that has come to be known as environmental sociology. Despite a history of research since the early 1970s in this arena, it is curious how little we have analytically integrated environmentalism and equity. This volume outlines some of the social consequences of this disattention by both social researchers and environmental movement adherents. From my own perspective, I find this disattention a puzzling paradox. It is comforting for us to attribute this strategic disregard as simply due to the ignorance of social scientists, or due to competition for attention posed by other changing social or ecological factors. These might include the rise of an unprecedently large voluntary social movement labeled as "the environmental movement", or the scientific rediscovery of pollution and its health effects in the 1960s and 1970s. Perhaps others currently working within environmental sociology itself, or in other social scientific research, can accept this interpretation. But I cannot, for the simple reason that I have been calling for attentiveness to this issue for over two decades. In 1973, I concluded my very first published paper, Politics, participation and pollution: The 'environmental movement,' with the following statement (Schnaiberg, 1973: 623): Therefore, any proposal for environmental action must clearly incorporate the elements of social justice, and there must be a commitment of the middle-class proponents to explicitly build in such considerations. This is a political necessity, as well as a moral prerequisite, since the coalition of rich and poor is sufficient to

In recent years, both realism and complexity have begun to have methodological influence in social research. Yet for the most part, these have existed separately and have had limited impact on empirical research. In this article, we develop a theoretical argument for complex realism, grounded in an ontology of probability, that may be operationalised to demonstrate the reality of social change at a micro- and meso-level. We apply our conception of complex realism to an example using the method of longitudinal case–based cluster analysis to analyse the trajectories over time of male and female prisoners aged 18 and above who were at risk of self-harm.

Thinking about global social policy can take many paths, ranging from empirical studies to theoretical reflections, from in-depth investigations to conceptual clarifications. This article provides a cultural and constructivist perspective to the debate on how to theorize global social policy. The main argument of this article is that a combination of world society theory and discourse analysis can provide a new and fruitful angle for global social policy research. Such theorizing involves clarifying definitions and conceptualizations, and the development of analytical strategies. The article first points out parallels in the definition of the ‘global’ in global social policy and world society research. Based on these shared understandings, it then introduces the core concepts and assumption of neo-institutionalist world society theory and discusses their implications for global social policy research, with a specific focus on the conceptualization of actors and the debate on homogeneity. Next, it discusses the newly emerging discourse analytical perspective on globalization processes within world society research and its corresponding analytical strategies. The article uses the case of early childhood to exemplify how the formation and transformation of global social policy can be analysed from such a discourse theoretical world society perspective, focusing on the conditions for the formation of statements, the formation of objects and concepts, and the formation of strategies. It concludes by summarizing the theoretical and analytical consequences of this perspective for global social policy research.

This chapter explores the intricacies of social policy amid contemporary globalizing dynamics. Centring on transborder exchanges, the chapter illuminates how these exchanges shape welfare systems worldwide, encompassing the flow of capital, goods, services, cultural exchanges and political actions, and examines the innovative reforms addressing health and welfare issues with particular focus on the global South. It poses critical questions about whether social policies can be isolated from their international contexts, and challenges the traditional, country-centric methodologies of social policy analysis. Emphasizing the necessity of a more encompassing transnational analytical approach, the chapter calls for a symbiotic relationship between traditional and transnational methodologies in social policy research. It underscores the variable influence that transnational actors, institutions and processes wield across different contexts. A core argument posits that a truly comprehensive understanding of social policy dynamics requires embracing the cross-border activities and their impacts on welfare structures within and between nations. This transnational analytics is presented as instrumental in understanding contemporary social policy dynamics. Additionally, the chapter stresses the need for comparative methods, urging an investigation into how different transnational forces shape social provision and policy across various contexts.

Much publicity has been given to attempts to discredit a belief in God on the grounds that such a belief does not sit well with scientific thinking in the physical and biological sciences. The present article seeks to argue that this stance overlooks the contribution of scientific methodologies in social science research. The article focuses on the methods of triangulation and of case study for establishing the validity and reliability of evidence in social research and concludes that the case study approach is valid for providing empirical scientific evidence for the existence of God.

Acknowledging that though the disciplines are supposed to be cumulative, there is little in the way of accumulated, general theory, this work opens a dialogue about the appropriate means and ends of social research based in analysis of fundamental issues. This book examines two root issues in the methodology of explanatory social research--the meaning of the idea of causation in social science and the question of the physiological mechanism that generates intentional behavior. Conclusions on these as well as on several derived problems emerge through the analysis. Among the latter, the analysis shows that neither universal nor probabilistic laws governing human behavior are possible, even within the positivist or empiricist traditions in which laws are a central feature. Instead, the analysis reveals a more modest view of what an explanatory social theory can be and do. In this view, the kind of theory that can be produced is basically the same in form and content across quantitative and qualitative research approaches, and similarly across different disciplines. The two streams of analysis are combined with resulting implications for large-sample, small-sample, and case study research design as well as for laws and theory. Written for the practicing empirical researcher in political science and organization theory, whether quantitative or qualitative, the major issuesand findings are meant to hold identically, however, for history, sociology, and other social science disciplines. Lawrence B. Mohr is Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, University of Michigan.