Integrating the Human Sciences Chapter 2 Some

The Map of Human Science We can and should develop a “map” of human science, consisting of a large but manageable set of phenomena and the causal relationships among these.
It is possible for scholars to share broadly similar understandings of the phenomena on our map.
All subsystems in human science are open. That is, the phenomena within the subsystem relate causally to phenomena outside the subsystem.
As a result, human scientists cannot identify causal regularities. They can, though, seek contextualized generalizations whereby the existence of a particular realization of X increases the likelihood of a particular realization of Y when there are particular realizations of other phenomena.
For various reasons, a unified theory of all of human science is highly unlikely if not impossible.<br>

Figure 2.1 An Abridged Map<br>

Figure 2.2 The Causes of Economic Growth<br>

Table 1.1 The Phenomena Don’t Memorize it!

Understand the Levels of Phenomena
Understand how the Table clarifies the meaning of key phenomena by identifying what are – and are not – subsidiary phenomena<br>

Integration Communities of specialized researchers can be very productive because of shared understandings. Yet those shared understandings limit what those communities investigate.
There is thus a need for integrative work within fields to compare different approaches to the subject matter. This will also tie disparate pieces of research together, and militate against important insights being forgotten.
There is a symbiotic relationship between specialized and integrative research (both within and across fields). Integrative research inevitably builds upon specialized research. In turn, integrative research informs specialized researchers of what they are missing and how their research fits within a broader whole.
Specialized researchers are sometimes suspicious of integrative research. It is possible to develop a set of guidelines for integrative research that are comparable to the standards used to evaluate specialized research. We developed such a set.<br>

Clarity There are huge costs of miscommunication and misunderstanding if scholars cannot share understandings of key terminology.
Our map of human science clarifies the meaning of terminology by listing what sorts of thing a phenomenon is and what sorts of things it is not.
Terminology that refers to a vaguely defined set of causal links encourages misunderstanding. It is generally best to specify which causal links one is investigating.
We can and should achieve shared understandings of terminology associated with theories and methods.
We can and should insist on clarity of expression.<br>

Methods and Theories Each of the dozen methods (or the many theory types) employed in human science has strengths and weaknesses. These were summarized briefly.
We can have the greatest confidence in a hypothesis that is supported by evidence from multiple methods (or theories). If methods point in different directions, we can triangulate.
Our best understanding of any causal link will likely involve the integration of multiple theories.
The use of multiple theories and methods also better allows us to establish the strength and importance and nature of a causal relationship.
Focusing on causal links rather than theory testing renders human science better able to develop more comprehensive understandings.<br>

Definitions of Method and Theory We can define a method as a means by which we obtain evidence of how the world functions, and proffer the dozen methods listed in the text as Wittgensteinian exemplars of what we mean by method.
Our definition of “theory” is “an attempt to specify in a logically consistent manner agency, action, decision-making processes, location, and time path with respect to any posited causal relationship(s).”
Note that what we are defining here is “scientific theory” about how the world works. We should carefully distinguish this from a set of philosophical theories that address “how the world should work” (ethics), “how scholars should study the world” (epistemology), and “what is the meaning of life?” (metaphysics).<br>

Definitions of Science and Human Science Science is the effort to understand causal links (as defined above) among phenomena (as defined above) through the application and integration of theories (as defined above) and their evaluation by methods (as defined above) and integrative strategies.
Human science, the subject of this book, is the study of the set of causal links involving the phenomena in Table 2.1.
Though these basic definitions of science and human science are valuable, it is useful to add one further clarification: Science exercises judgment in the evaluation of evidence from all methods and seeks to identify and transcend possible biases.<br>

Table 2.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods Again, don’t memorize it!

The point should be obvious that each method does some things well and other things poorly.<br>

Postmodernism; Culture Wars Postmodernists raised a set of valuable concerns about ambiguity, objectivity, reality, and a host of other issues. Yet there are strategies for addressing (imperfectly) all of these concerns and thus aspiring to enhanced human science understanding. We collectively should seek to judge the evidence and arguments regarding particular hypotheses, and should aspire toward consensus.
The strategies outlined in this chapter, and especially integration, reduce the scope for ideological posturing within human science.<br>