scholarly journals Ontology, Methodological Individualism, and the Foundations of the Social Sciences

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1377-1389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Sugden
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Methodological Individualism ◽  
New Model ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific

This is a review essay based on a critical assessment of The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences by Brian Epstein. Epstein argues that models in the social sciences are inadequate because they are based on a false ontology of methodological individualism, and proposes a new model of social ontology. I examine this model and point to flaws in it. More generally, I argue against Epstein's methodological approach, which treats social ontology as prior to social scientific modeling and as certifying the “building blocks” that modelers then use. I argue that modelers can legitimately shape the building blocks for their own models. (JEL A10, B40)

Philosophy of Social Sciences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Elster
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Methodological Individualism ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Holistic Approaches ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Status ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
Causal Laws

This chapter addresses problems and themes in the social sciences. Social sciences are understood specifically as sciences that have (or should have) the following minimal characteristics: their object of study is human behavior and they follow a certain number of methodological principles, including a marked effort towards analytical clarity; the investigation of causal explanations through the formulation of causal laws or at least causal mechanisms; and a subscription to a form of methodological individualism, if an amended one, which puts at the heart of social science the notion of choice. We discuss three principal themes. The first raises the question of the status of laws in the social sciences and, in particular, that of “consequence laws,” otherwise known as functionalist explanations. The second theme takes up methodological individualism, as compared to holistic approaches. The last theme concerns hypotheses of rationality and self-interested motivations, which increasingly figure in social scientific explanations.

scholarly journals Précis of The Ant Trap

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Social World ◽  
Collective Intentionality ◽  
New Model ◽  
The Social ◽  
Basic Facts ◽  
Traditional Approaches

AbstractThis article summarizes The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences. The book develops a new model for social ontology, applies it to groups and collective intentionality, and criticizes various forms of individualism. Part One of the book presents two traditional approaches to social ontology and unifies them into the “grounding–anchoring model” for the building of the social world. Part Two shows that individualism is mistaken even for basic facts about groups of people, challenges prevailing views of group intention and action, and illustrates how to approach facts about groups in general.

Instrumentalizing and Naturalizing Social Ontology: Replies to Lohse and Little

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-39
Author(s):  
Richard Lauer
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Social World ◽  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Made In

This article addresses Simon Lohse’s and Daniel Little’s responses to my article “Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?.” In that article, I present a pragmatic and deflationary view of the priority of social ontology to social science methodology where social ontology is valued for its ability to promote empirical success and not because it yields knowledge of what furnishes the social world. First, in response to Lohse, I argue that my view is compatible with a role for ontological theorizing in the social sciences. However, the view that results instrumentalizes social ontology. Second, in my response to Little, I argue that the same considerations I made in my article apply to naturalistic attempts to motivate a non-deflationary view, repeating some of the central issues of that article.

scholarly journals Thick Concepts in Social Research: What, Why, and How?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 160940692110661
Author(s):  
Simon van der Weele
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Qualitative Social Research ◽  
Thick Concepts ◽  
The Social ◽  
Epistemological Challenge ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Practical Recommendations ◽  
Methodological Difficulties

Thick concepts are concepts that describe and evaluate at once. Academic discussion on thick concepts originated in meta-ethics, but thick concepts increasingly draw attention from qualitative researchers working in the social sciences, too. However, these scholars work in relative isolation from each other, and an overview of their ideas is missing. This article has two aims. The first is to provide such an overview, by bringing together these disparate voices on why thick concepts matter for the social sciences and how to work with them in qualitative social research. The second aim is to reflect on the methodological difficulties of working with thick concepts, by thinking through the example of my research on a specific thick concept—the concept of dependency. The article argues that thick concepts are invoked by social researchers for either epistemological or methodological purposes. It then goes on to claim that if we want to take thick concepts as our sensitizing concepts or as our objects of research, these two purposes really ought to be considered in unison: any methodological approach involving thick concepts must factor in the epistemological challenge thick concepts pose to social-scientific research. To show why—and to consider what this requires from qualitative researchers—I draw on insights acquired during my study on dependency. I end with practical recommendations for working with thick concepts in social research.

scholarly journals Ontological Investigations of a Pragmatic Kind? A Reply to Lauer

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-12
Author(s):  
Simon Lohse
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Scientific Methodology ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific

This article is a reply to Richard Lauer’s “Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?” and an attempt to contribute to the meta-social ontological discourse more broadly. In the first part I will give a rough sketch of Lauer’s general project and confront his pragmatist approach with a fundamental problem. The second part of my reply will provide a solution for this problem rooted in a philosophy of the social sciences in practice.

Social Ontology and Varieties of Interpretation: A Hermeneutic Critique of Searle

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-217
Author(s):  
Hans-Herbert Kögler
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
Methodological Pluralism ◽  
John Searle ◽  
The Social ◽  
Hermeneutic Approach ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Argument Proceeds ◽  
Block Approach

The essay probes the limits of social ontology as a grounding project for interpretation and explanation in the social sciences. The argument proceeds by challenging the exemplary and influential ontology of John Searle by means of Jim Bohman’s hermeneutic approach. While both share the interest in establishing the validity basis of social-scientific claims, Bohman reconstructs in this regard the situated standpoint of the hermeneutic interpreter, in contrast to Searle’s building block approach to social reality. A careful analysis of Bohman’s argumentation reveals the need for differentiating a variety of interpretive stances, which leads back to important revisions of the intentionality-based social ontology of Searle. The discussion results in the need to ground methodological pluralism in a universal hermeneutics of interpretive capabilities to safeguard the social sciences against relativistic as well as metaphysical challenges.

Social Ontology and Model-Building: A Response to Epstein

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-192
Author(s):  
Nadia Ruiz
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Model Building ◽  
Social Ontology ◽  
Model Construction ◽  
Ontological Commitments ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Social

Brian Epstein has recently argued that a thoroughly microfoundationalist approach towards economics is unconvincing for metaphysical reasons. Generally, Epstein argues that for an improvement in the methodology of social science we must adopt social ontology as the foundation of social sciences; that is, the standing microfoundationalist debate could be solved by fixing economics’ ontology. However, as I show in this paper, fixing the social ontology prior to the process of model construction is optional instead of necessary and that metaphysical-ontological commitments are often the outcome of model construction, not its starting point. By focusing on the practice of modeling in economics the paper provides a useful inroad into the debate about the role of metaphysics in the natural and social sciences more generally.

scholarly journals Interpretive description: a viable methodological approach for nursing research

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilara Parente Pinheiro Teodoro ◽  
Vitória de Cássia Félix Rebouças ◽  
Sally Elizabeth Thorne ◽  
Naanda Kaana Matos de Souza ◽  
Lídia Samantha Alves de Brito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Applied Sciences ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Interpretive Description ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
The Social ◽  
Reflective Study ◽  
Theoretical Reflection

Abstract Objective: To present a theoretical reflection about the origin and the assumptions of the "Interpretive Description" method, and to discuss its applicability in Nursing and Health research. Method: Theoretical-reflective study, based on articles and books published by proponent of this approach, as well as scientific articles in which the authors reported having used this method in their studies. Results: It was evidenced that the "Interpretive Description" arose from the need to generate a better understanding of clinical practices in Nursing. This approach has its roots in the methodological traditions of the Social Sciences, although it differs from them in terms of its excessive rigidity and essentially theoretical objectives. The proposed method has been applied in several studies either in Nursing as other areas of Health. Conclusion: The "Interpretive Description" is considered a feasible approach for the production of knowledge in Applied Sciences such as Nursing.

Stabilizing American Society: Kenneth Boulding and the Integration of the Social Sciences, 1943–1980

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Fontaine
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
World War ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Main Determinant ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
American Society ◽  
The Right

ArgumentFor more than thirty years after World War II, the unconventional economist Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993) was a fervent advocate of the integration of the social sciences. Building on common general principles from various fields, notably economics, political science, and sociology, Boulding claimed that an integrated social science in which mental images were recognized as the main determinant of human behavior would allow for a better understanding of society. Boulding's approach culminated in the social triangle, a view of society as comprised of three main social organizers – exchange, threat, and love – combined in varying proportions. According to this view, the problems of American society were caused by an unbalanced combination of these three organizers. The goal of integrated social scientific knowledge was therefore to help policy makers achieve the “right” proportions of exchange, threat, and love that would lead to social stabilization. Though he was hopeful that cross-disciplinary exchanges would overcome the shortcomings of too narrow specialization, Boulding found that rather than being the locus of a peaceful and mutually beneficial exchange, disciplinary boundaries were often the occasion of conflict and miscommunication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document