scholarly journals Handbook of Social Science Methodology for Students and Course Instructors

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-193
Author(s):  
Joanna Rak ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology

scholarly journals Social science methodology: A unified framework

Acta Politica ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-474
Author(s):  
Adrie Dassen ◽  
Kostas Gemenis
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Unified Framework ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology

scholarly journals Damaging the Case for Improving Social Science Methodology through Misrepresentation: Re-Asserting Confidence in Hypothesis Testing as a Valid Scientific Process

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Nicholson ◽  
Sean Mccusker
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Significance Tests ◽  
Hypothesis Tests ◽  
Strong Statement ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Reasonable Model

This paper is a response to Gorard's article, ‘Damaging real lives through obstinacy: re-emphasising why significance testing is wrong’ in Sociological Research Online 21(1). For many years Gorard has criticised the way hypothesis tests are used in social science, but recently he has gone much further and argued that the logical basis for hypothesis testing is flawed: that hypothesis testing does not work, even when used properly. We have sympathy with the view that hypothesis testing is often carried out in social science contexts when it should not be, and that outcomes are often described in inappropriate terms, but this does not mean the theory of hypothesis testing, or its use, is flawed per se. There needs to be evidence to support such a contention. Gorard claims that: ‘Anyone knowing the problems, as described over one hundred years, who continues to teach, use or publish significance tests is acting unethically, and knowingly risking the damage that ensues.’ This is a very strong statement which impugns the integrity, not just the competence, of a large number of highly respected academics. We argue that the evidence he puts forward in this paper does not stand up to scrutiny: that the paper misrepresents what hypothesis tests claim to do, and uses a sample size which is far too small to discriminate properly a 10% difference in means in a simulation he constructs. He then claims that this simulates emotive contexts in which a 10% difference would be important to detect, implicitly misrepresenting the simulation as a reasonable model of those contexts.

scholarly journals Editors’ Note

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-285
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Hypothesis Testing ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology

In 2016 and 2017, Sociological Research Online published the following article and two subsequent responses: Gorard S (2016) Damaging Real Lives Through Obstinacy: Re-emphasising Why Significance Testing is Wrong. Sociological Research Online 21(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3857 Nicholson J and McCusker S (2016) Damaging the Case for Improving Social Science Methodology Through Misrepresentation: Re-asserting Confidence in Hypothesis Testing as a Valid Scientific Process. Sociological Research Online 21(2): 1–12. DOI: 10.5153/sro.3985 Gorard (2017) Significance Testing is Still Wrong, and Damages Real Lives: A Brief Reply to Spreckelsen and Van Der Horst, and Nicholson and McCusker. Sociological Research Online 22(2): 1–7. DOI: 10.5153/sro.4281 An erratum has been published in the journal to clarify some corrections that had inadvertently been missed ahead of publication of the first article: Erratum to Gorard (2016) Damaging Real lives Through Obstinacy: Re-emphasising Why Significance Testing is Wrong. Sociological Research Online 21(1): 1–14. DOI: 10.1177/1360780417731066 Readers are advised to read the responses to the original article, particularly paragraph 4.7 in Nicholson and McCusker (2016) and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 in Gorard (2017) in light of the recently published Erratum. The journal apologises for any inconvenience or misunderstanding this may have caused.

scholarly journals Historical Disparities and Gendered Citation Patterns

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. M. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Citation Data ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Over Time

In this comment on Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell’s article “Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields,” I explore the role of changes in the disparities of citations to work written by women over time. Breaking down their citation data by era, I find that some of the patterns in citations are the result of the legacy of disparity in the field. Citations to more recent work come closer to matching the distribution of the gender of authors of published work. Although the need for more equitable practices of citation remains, the overall patterns are not quite as bad as Dion, Sumner, and Mitchell conclude.

Multicausality and Equifinality

2021 ◽  
pp. 174-177
Author(s):  
Johann Wolfschwenger ◽  
Kevin L. Young
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Systems Analysis ◽  
Initial Conditions ◽  
Final State ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Research Traditions ◽  
Causal Processes ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Research Situation

This chapter evaluates multicausality and equifinality, which refer to a research situation whereby an outcome is explained by more than one causal factor. The term ‘equifinality’ stems from systems analysis, and refers to a situation in which ‘the same final state may be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways’. ‘Equifinality’ also appears in related disciplines such as psychology, archaeology, or environmental studies, while ‘multicausality’ is often used in literature on social science methodology. Ultimately, multicausality and equifinality are important reasons why social phenomena are particularly challenging to study. Multicausality and equifinality are often explored by research traditions and methods of social inquiry that approach causal processes through a ‘causes-of-effects’ approach, rather than an ‘effect-of-causes’ approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document