Random Thoughts and Doubts of a Social Scientist

What do you think? Can we predict human behavior? Should we even try? If we can't, then what's the point of scholarship in these areas? To better understand certain phenomena?

Are there benefits to publishing things like case studies when they only describe the experiences of one person? What about autoethnographies? Is that scholarship?

There is a pressure to think a certain way about these things, especially in the issues of epistemology. There is a right way and a wrong way. The right way believes in truth with a capital "T," meaning there is an objective reality that we can access through the magic of the scientific process. The right way leaves no room for heavy descriptions or adjectives or quotes of people talking about things in their own words. The right way is cleaner. Give them surveys. On a 1-7 Likert scale, a 7 is a 7 is a 7. If you ask someone how intense their experience of hurt was in this instance, a 7 = the most hurtful thing a person could imagine. Who cares what this means exactly. It's a 7!

Now, I mock this in some ways, but in others I agree with this approach to research. I have been taught that the only real way to do research is quantitatively. But can we really quantify human experiences? Certainly, for some things, we can. And this method is really the only way we can predict and control human behavior.

Basically, I'm all torn up about these issues.

Then, we discussed the differences between science and social science. Some said they are the same, so why differentiate? So said, well of course they are different - there are the hard sciences which can know things for certain, 100% of the time, and then there are the soft sciences which can only take a stab at it and hope for some good odds. But is anything ever really certain? I mean, I would have to talk to JBS about this, but the higher you go in the sciences and math, the less concrete it is. Particles and substances act in surprising ways and baffle scientists, just like humans do. I guess it doesn't matter whether we should group social science and science together...what is interesting, though, is to think about if there really are differences. Are the hard sciences really that concrete? Are the soft sciences really that mushy? I don't know....

My final thoughts based on today's class discussion are about ethical issues. What is our responsibility as researchers and as scholars? Is it to produce research that benefits the greater good? If so, what is the greater good? By who's definition? Is it to do good research? Well, then what is "good" research? Research that has strong methods and tight analyses? Were the makers of the atomic bomb good scholars? They were good at what they did, yes. Should they have worked to come up with that technology? I don't know. Can they be held responsible for what others do with the knowledge they produced?

Even though you never know what people can do with the discoveries you make, do you think we have any responsibility to think about what the outcomes of our research might be? I have to think that in some ways, we do. I mean, I don't want to create a theory about hurtful messages so that people can go out and manipulate others and hurt them to get what they want. But how could I possibly know what the outcomes might be?

Though all these questions are important to consider, I had a tiny moment of doubt today. A moment where I wasn't sure I wanted to be part of all this. I'm sure it will pass. I do feel like I'm in the right place, but sometimes things seem so messy that you just want to dust off your hands and head out of town.