Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Social Research Methods Cap 1 About Social Science

    Uploaded by

    jorge
    15 views26 pages
    Research

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Research

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    15 views26 pages

    Social Research Methods Cap 1 About Social Science

    Uploaded by

    jorge
    Research

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 26
    1 ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENCE THE SOCIAL SCIENCE SUCCESS STORY Soci selene flues WHAT ARETHE SOCIAL SCIENCES? SOME HISTORY OF METHODS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH EPISTEMOLOGY: DIFFERENT WAYS OF KNOWING Ratonlin, arp and Kat THE NORMS OF SCIENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AS AN INSTITUTION N MODERN sOCIENEES tay eas Exporaton printing, and modern science Calo, Bacon, Doras, and Newton Scien, ancy al war THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE a sss "ME VARIETIES OF Posts (Quetelet, Saino an Comte _ THE REACTIONS AGAINST PosmivisMt auranian, hermenat and phenomenology ABOUT NUMBERS AND WORDS: THE QUALITATIVE/QUANTITATIVE SPLIT ETHICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 4 | BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH | INTRODUCTION This book is about research in the soda sciencesthat the sdences of human thought and human behavior Our ves are profoundly fected by the socal sciences. Our public schools are scenes of one ‘experiment afer another, as we search for better ways to help chidren lear, Those experiment ae part ‘of socal scence at werk, Our ates are scenes of hundreds of programs designed, we hope, to help people develop their employ nent sis or gin access to health care oid shelter Al these programs ae part of social scence at work Weare bombarded withads to buy hs or that thing, to vote fr this or that ead, to give to this or that charity, Those ads, too, are part of socal scence at work, THE SOCIAL SCIENCE SUCCESS STORY. ‘We are always on the Fookout for ways to extend and make our own lives and the lives of our children more comfortable. In the absence of any hard information about how to do chose things, ‘we quice naturally mystify the forces that make some people rich and some poor, make some people sick and others healthy, and make some people die young and others live a long time. From its heginnings in the sixteenth centary, mod em science has been demystifying those forces. Science isabout the systsmatic creation of knowl- ‘edge that provides us with the kind of contcol ‘over nature—from the weather to disease to out ‘own buying habits—that we have always sought. Some people are very uncomfortable with this “mastery over nature” metaphor. When alls said and done, though, few people—not even the most outspoken critics of science—would give up the material benefits of science. For example, one of science’s great triumphsover natures antibiotics, We know that overprescriprion of those drugs eventually sets the stage for new strains of drug resistant bacteria, but ws also know perfectly well that we're not going t stop using antibiotics, ‘Well ely (we hope) on more science to come up with better bacteria fighters. Air conditioning is another of science's tri- _umphis over nature, In Forida, where Hive, there is constant erticism of overdevelopment. But ry ‘getting middle-class people in my state to give up air conditioning for just one day in the summner and you'll find out in a hurry about the weakness of ideology compared to the power of ereat re comforts. If running air conditioners pollute the air oF uses up fossil fuel, we'll rely (we hope) on ‘more science to solve those problems, t00. ‘We are accustomed to thinking about the suc- cess of the physical and biological sciences, Sut not about the suecess ofthe social sciences. Ask. 500 people, as did recently in telephone survey, to list “the major contributions that science 195 made to humanity” in the twentieth century end thore i strong consensus. Many people list medi- ‘al science and cures for diseases without hes a- tion, followed by things like space exploratisn, computers, nuclear power, satellite telecommuni- cations television, pacemakers, automobiles, ar- tificial limbs, and transplant surgery. In other words, the contributions of ssience are in the public imagination, technologies—the things that provide the mastery over nature 1 mentioned. Ask those same people to list “the major con- tributions that the social and behavioral sciences ave made to humanity” and you get a long silence on the phone. This is followed by, “What do you mean?” Even after explaining thar you ‘want co know about the contributions of psychol: ‘ogy, sociology, anthropology, economics, and po- litical science, you get a raggedy list, with no Twant youto know, right off txe bat that social science is serious business and thar it has been a roaring success, contributing mightily to human ity’s global effort co control nature. Fundamental breakthroughs by psychologists in understanding the stimulus-response mechanism in humans, for ‘example, have made possible the treatment and _management of phobias, bringing comfort to un told millions of people. The same breakthroughs have brought us wildly successful attack ads in olitics and mil- lions of adolescents becoming 300ked on ciga rettes from clever advertising. Tnever said you'd like all the successes of social scence. * Beginning in the 1840s, fundamental break- throughs in sociology and anthropology have sven us great understanding 0: how economic and politcal forces affect demography. One resule is life insurance. Suppose I'm the life insurance company. You bet me that yous will die within 365 days. [ask you a few questions: How old are you? Do you smoke? What do you do for a living? ‘Then, depending on the answers (T've got all that fundamental knowledge, remember?), [tell you that the bet is your $235 against my promise to pay your heirs $30,000 ifyou diewithin 365 days. Ifyou fose the bet and stay alive, [keep your $235. [Next year, we go through this again, excepe that row I set your bet at $300. ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENCE | 5 ‘This is simply spectacular human engineering at work, and it’s all based on fundamental, scien tifcally developed knowledge about risk assess- ment. Another product of this knowledge is sate lotteries —taxes on people who are bad at math, ~——_ In the late nineteenth century, Otto von Bis: imarck asked his minister of finance to come up with a pension plan that the government could provide for retized German workers, Based on sound social science data, the minister suggested that 65 would be ust the right age for retirement, [At that time, the average life expectancy in Ger many was, of course, less than 65 and those workers who made it t0 65 could expect only a few years on the government pension. In 1934, life expectancy was sil less than 65 for men in the U.S. when the Socfal Security system was created, and Bismarck’s magic number of 65 was adopted as the age of retirement. ‘Today, atthe end of the twentieth century, life expectancy in the highly industrialized nations is close to 80—fully 30 years longer than at che beginning ofthe century—and social science data are being used more than ever in the development of public policy. How much leisure rime should we have? What kinds of tax structures are needed to support a medical system that caters t0 the needs of 80-somethings? Social Science Failures Ifthe lise of successes in the social sciences is long, so is the list of failures. School busing to achieve racial integration was based on scientific findings in a report by James Coleman, Those findings were achieved in the best tradition of careful scholarship. They just happened to be ‘wrong because the scientists involved in the study 6 | BACKGROUNE TO RESEARCH dlidn't anticipate “White fight”—a phenomenon in which Whites abandoned cities for suburbs, taking much of the urban ax base with them and diving the inner cities imo poverty On the other hand, th: lise of faifures in the physical and biological ciencesisjustasspectacu- Jaz. In the Middle Ages, alchemists tried every thing they could ro turn lead into gold. They had lots of people investing in them, but it just didn’t ‘work. Cold fasion is still a dream that attracts & few hardy souls. And no cne who saw the explo- sion of the Space Shurtle Challenger on national television will ever forget. ‘There are some really important lessons in all this, Fes, science isn't perfect, but it isn't going away because it's jus too successful ar doing what people everywhere want it to do. Second, the sciences of human thought and fiman bebavioz are much, mach more powerful than most people understand them o be. Third, the power of social science, like that of the physical and biological Sciences, comes from the same source: the scien- tific method in which ideas, based on hunches or ‘on formal theories, are put forward, ested pub- lily, and replaced by ideas that produce better results, And fourth, socal science knowledge, like that of any science, can be used to enhance our lives or to degrade them, WHAT ARE THE SOCIAL SCIENCES? ‘The social science landscape is pretty compli- cated. The main branches, in alphabetical order, are anthropology, economics, history, political science, psychology, social peychology, and soci- ‘ology. Bach ofthese fields has many subfields, and there are, in addition, many other disciplines in ‘which social research is dene. These include com- munications, criminology, demography, educa tion, journalism, leisure sudies, nursing, and so- cial work, to name just afew. Research is a craft. takes practice, and more practice. q ‘Over time, methods for research have been developed within each of these fields, but no discipline owns any mettod. You may noc agree with my ourfront, posiivist epistemology, my centhusiasm for science as mastery over nature, ‘Methods, however, belong to everyone. Anthro pologists developed the method of participant ‘observation. It comtinues to be the hallmark of that discipline, but today participant observation is used in all the social sciences. Sociologists de- ‘eloped the questionnaire survey. People still a= saciate sociology with that method, but question- naire surveys are used in all the social sciences today. Direct observation of behavior was devel- ‘oped in psychology. I's sil used more in psycho'- ‘ogy (and animal ethology) than in other disci- plines, but now that method belongs tothe world, No one is expert in all the methods available for research. But seasoned socal scientist ll know about the array of methods available to them for collecting and analyzing dats. By the time you get through this book, you should have a pretty good idea of the range of methods used in the social sciences, and what kinds of research problems are best addressed by the various methods. Research is a craft. I'm not talking analogy here, Research isnt like a craft. tis a craft. If you know what people have to go through ta become skilled carpenters or makers of clothes, you have some idea of what it takes to learn the skills for doing research, It takes practice, and more pr & Have you ever known a professional seamstress? My wife and I were doing fieldwork in bemiguil- pan, a small cown inthe stare of Hidalgo, Mexico, in 1962 when we met Florencia. he made dresses for litle gisls—Communion dresses, mostly, Mothers would bring their gids to Plorencia's house. Florencia would look at the gels and say, turn again . .. OK," and that was that, The mother and daughter would leave, and Florencia would stare making a dress. No pattern, no elaborate measurement. There would be one fiting to make some adjustments, but thar “Tarn around ABOUT SOCIAL sclENCE | 7 yas amazed at Flocencia’s ability to pick up 4 scissors and start cutting fabric without a pat- tern. Then, in 1964, we went to Greece and met Irini. She made dresses for women on the island of Kalymnos where I did my doctoral fieldwork. ‘Women would bring Irini a catalog o¢ a picture— {from Scars or from some Pari fashion show—and Trini would make the dresses. Irini was mote cautious than Florencia was, She made lots of ‘measurements and ook notes, But there were 10 patserns, She just looked at her clients, made the ‘measurements, and starced cutting fabric. How do people learn that much? With lots of practice. And that's the way itis with research, Don’t expect to do perfect research the frst time ‘out, In fact, don’t ever expect to do perfect re- search. Just expect that each time yout do a re- search project, you will bring more and more ‘experience to the effort and that your abilities to gather and analyze data and write up the results will get better and better. ——_ SOME HISTORY OF METHODS IN SOCIAL RESEARCH In the 1830s, when modern social science began, all the practitioners thought of themselves as be- longing to one large enterprise: the application of the scientific method to the study of human thought and human behavior. By the 1930s, the social sciences had divided and formed separate departments in universities, and it was easy to distinguish all the disciplines fram one another. Partly the distinctions were based on the kinds of questions people asked. Psychologists asked questions about the mind, anthropologists asked questions about culture, sociologiss asked ques- sions about society, and so on. But, to a large extent, distinctions among the social sciences were based on the methods people used in tying to answer research questions. Psychologists used Taboratory experiments, sociologists used survey guestionnaites, anthropologists trekked wo the field to do something they called participant ob- servation, economists built mathematical models, and historians hung out in archives and used special methods for assessing the credibility of documents @ | BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH Whether we use words or numbers, we might as well use them right. ‘Today, despite the proliferation of departments and journals and profesional organizations, we are coming full circle. More and more, social scientists recognize that we are part of the same enterprise, We continue to ask different questions about the same set of phenomena, but we now all have access to the same methods. No discipline ‘owns survey research or participant observation cot experiments, The dheme of this book is that methods—all methods—belong to all of us. ‘Whatever our theoretical orientation, whatever cour discipline, 2 sound mix of qualitative and 4quancitaive data is inevitable in any study of human thought and behavior. Whether we use words oF numbers, we might as well use them right. use the term “socal sciences” and not “social and behavioral sciences” because the later is too big a mouthful. Actually all of these disciplines are social and behavioral: They all deal with Jbuman behavior and thoughs at both the individ- val and group levels. Some psychologists, for example, focus on in- dividual thought and behavior, while others stacy group processes. Many sociologists and political scientists study groups of people (abor unions, firms, hospitals, churches, nations) and how those ‘groups are organized and connected t0 one an- fother, but many also study individual behavior ‘Gexual preferences, consumer choiees, responses to illness). They aggregate their data to under stand societies, bur they ask their questions of individual people. Anthropologists focus on cul ‘ures, but many are concerned with individual. In-depth interviews produce rich data about the ‘experiences that real people have being labor migrants, living with AIDS, making it asa single parent, ot being a surgeon, « cop, or an intrave- nous deug user EPISTEMOLOGY: DIFFERENT WAYS OF KNOWING “The problem with trying to write a book about research methods (besides the fac that there are so many of them) is thatthe word “method” has atleast three meanings. Atthe most general level, it means epistemology, or the study of how we know things. Ar a still general level, it’s about observation fieldwork, dig up informacion from libraries and archives, o¢ run an experiment. "These are strategic methods, which means that they comprise Iots of mechods at once. ‘Ar the specific level, method is about tech- ‘nique—what kind of sample to use, whether t0 do face-to-face interviews or use the telephone, whether fo use an interpreter of learn the loca Janguage well enough to do. your own inter viewing, whether to use a Solomon four-erovp design or a static-group comparison design .n running an experiment, and so on. ‘When it comes to epistemology, there are sev ral key questions. One is whether you subscribe to the philosophical principles of rationalisne or empiricism. Another is whether you buy the 35 sumptions of the scientific method, often called positivism in the social sciences, of favor the competing method, often called humanism oF interpretivism. hese are tough questions, wih no easy answers. I discuss them in turn, Empiricism, and Kant ‘The clash berween rationalism and empiricism is at least as old as ancient Greck philosophy. Ie is still a hotly debated topic in txe philosophy of knowledge. Rationalism is the idea that human beings achieve knowledge because of theie capacity t0 reason, From the rationalist perspective, there are 1 priori euths, which, if we just prepare our ‘minds adequately, will become evident 0 us. From this perspective, progress of the human intellec over the centuries has resulted from rea- son. Many great thinkers, from Plato to Leibniz, subscribed to the rationalist principle of know!- edge. “We hold these truths im be self-evident "isan example of assuming a priori truths. The competing epistemology is empiricism. For empiricist, the only knowledge that human beings acquire is from sensory experience. David Hume (1711-76), for example, held that human beings are born with empty boxes for minds (the so-called tabula rasa, o “clean slate") and that the boxes are filled with experiences throughout life. We sce and hear and taste things, and, as we accumulate experience, we make generalizations; ‘we come to understand what is true fom what ‘we are exposed to. Immanuel Kant (1724-18041 proposed a way cout, a third alternative. A prios eruths exist, he said, but if we see those truths e's because of the way our brains are structured. The human mind, said Kant, has a builtin eapacity for ordering and ‘organizing sensory experience. This was. power- ful idea that led many scholars to look to the human mind itself for clues abour how haman behavior is ordered. Noam Chomsky for example, proposed that fhuman beings can learn any -anguage because humans have a universal grammar already built eee ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENCE | 9 into their minds. This would account, he said, for the fact that material from one language ean be translated into any other language, A competing theory was proposed by B. F, Skinner, a radical behaviorist. Humans learn their language, Skin- ner sai, the way all animals learn everything, by operant conditioning, or reinforced learning. B= bies learn the sounds oftheir language, for exam- ple, because people who speak the language re ward babies for making the “right” sounds (see Skinner 19575 Chomsky 1972; Stemmer 1990) The intellecnal clash between empiricism and rationalism creates a dilemma for all social scien tists. Empiricism holds that people learn their values and that values are therefore relative. 1 consider myself an empiricist, but I accept the rationalist idea that there are universal truths about right and wrong, Vm not in the least interested, for example, in transcending my disgust with, of taking a value= neutral stance about, genocide in Germany of the 1940s or Bosnia and Rwanda of the 1990s, No fone has ever found a satisfactory way out of this dilemma, As a practical matter, I recognize that both rationalism and empiricism have conteib- uted to our current understanding ofthe diversity of human behavior. ‘Modern social science has its roots in the ene piticiss of the French and Scottish Enlightenment periods. ‘The early empiricists of the petiod, like David Hume, looked outside the haman mind, 0 human behavior and experience, for answers to questions about human differences. They made the ides of a mechanistic science of humanity as plausible as the idea of a mechanistic science of ‘other natural phenomena, In the rest ofthis chapter, [outline the assump- tions ofthe scientific method and how they apply to the study of human thought and behavior in the social sciences today. 10 | BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH THE NORMS OF SCIENCE The notmns of science are clear, Science is “an objective, logical, and systematic method of analysis of phenomena, devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge” (Lasteueci 1963:6). Three words in Lastruci’s defnition— “objective,” “method,” and “reliable”—are espe- cially important. 1. Objective. The idea of truly objective inquiry hhaslong been understood tobe a delusion. Scien tists do hold, however, that striving for objectivity is useful. In practice, this means being explicit about our measurements,so that others can more ‘easily find the errors we make, We constantly try toimprove measurement, to make it more precise and more accurate, and we submit out findings to peer review—what Robert Merton called the “or- ‘ganized skepticism” of our colleagues, 2. Method. Bach scientific discipline has devel- ‘oped a set of techniques for gathering and han- dling data, but there is i general, a single scien- tific method. The method is based on three assumptions: (1) Reality is “out there” to be dis- THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE Early Ideas ‘The scientific method is barely 400 years old, and its systematic applicstion to human thought and behavior is less than half that. Aristotle in- sisted that knowledge shculd be based on experi- ence and that conclusions about general cases should be based on the o2servation of more lim= ited ones. But Aristotle did not advocate disinter= ested, objective accumulation of reliable knowl edge. Moreover, like Aristotle, all scholars until covered, (2) direct observation is the way 10 discover i and (3) material explanations for ob- servable phenomena are always sufficient and metaphysical explanations are never needed, 3. Reliable, Something that is true in Detroit is just as tre in Vladivostok and Nairobi. Knowl ‘edge can be kept secret by nations, but chere can never be such a thing as “Venenuelan physics” “American chemistry." ot “Kenyan geology.” ‘Not that it hasn't been tried. From around 1935 to 1965, T. D. Lysenko, with the early help of Josef Stalin, succeeded in gaining absolute power over biology in what was then the Soviet Union, Lysenko developed Lamarckian theory ‘of genetics, in which human-induced changes in seeds would, he claimed, become inherited. De- spite public rebuke from the entire non-Soviet scientific world, Lysenko’s “Russian genetics” be- ‘ame official Soviet policy—a policy that nearly ruined agriculture in the Soviet Union and i's European satellites well into the 1960s (Zirkle 1949; Joravsky 1970; see also Storer 1966, on the oem of science). the seventeenth century relied on metaphysical concepts, like the soul, to explain observable phenomen ologists stil ralked about “vital forces” as a way of explaining the existence of life (One ancient scholar stands out asa forerunner of modern scientific thinking—thinking chat would eventually divorce seience feom studies of ‘mystical phenomena. In is ingle surviving work, a poem titled On the Nature of Things (1995), Yieus Lucretius Carus (first century B.C.) sug Even in the nineteenth century, bi= gested that everything that exited in the world Inad tobe made of sore material substance. Con- sequently, if the soul and the gods were real, they had to be material, too (see Minadeo 1969). Bat Lucretius’ work didnot have much impact on the way knowledge was parsued, ard even today, his work is little appreciated in the social sciences (but sce Harris [1968] for an exception). Exploration, Printing, and Modem Science Skip to around 1400, when a series of revola- tionary changesbeganin Europe—some of which se sil going on—that transformed Weststn so- ciety and other societies arourd the world. In 1413, the firs Spanish ships began raiding the coast of west Aiea, hijacking catgoand capturing slayes fom Islamic traders. Nev tools of navigae tion (the compass andthe sextast) made it posi ble for adventurous plunderes 1 go farther and farther from European shotes in search of booty. These breakthroughs were like those in atchi- tecrite and astronomy by the ancient Mayans and Egyprians. They were based on systematic obser- vation of the natural world, but they weee ot senerated by the social and phi‘osophical emer- prise we call science. Tha eequired several ocher revolutions, Johannes Gutenberg complesd the frst edi- tion of the Bible on his newiy invented printing press in 1455, (Printing preses had heen used eaclier in China, Japan, and Kores, but lacked rovabletype.) By the end ofthe fifteenth century, every major city in Europe had a press. Printed books provided a mens forthe accurmlation and disccibution of knowledge. Eventually, printing ‘would make organized science possible, but it did not by itself guarantee the objective pursuit of reliable knowledge any more than the invention of writing had done four millennia before (Fisen- secin 1979; Davis 1981). Martin Luther was born just 15 years after Gutenberg died, andthe Protestant Reformation, ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENCE | 11 boginning in 1517, added much to the history of ‘modern science. It challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to be the sole interpreter and disseminator of theological doctrine. The Protestant affirmation of every person's right to interpret scripture required literacy on the part of everyone, not just the clergy. The printing press made it possible for every family of some means to own (and ead) its own Bible. Universal literacy helped male possible the development of science as an organized activity Galileo The direct philosophical antecedents of mode fem science came at the end of the sixteenth century. Ifhad to pickone single figure on whom to bestow the honor of founding modern science, it would have to he Galileo Galilei. His best ‘known achievement, of course, was hs thorough refutation of the Ptolemaic geocentric (Earth- centered) theory of the heavens. But he did more than just insist tha seholaes observe things rather than rely on metaphysical dogma o explain them. He developed the idea of the experiment by causing things to happen (tolling balls down t= ferently inclined planes, for example, to see how fase they go) and measuring the results, Galileo was born in 1564 and became profes- sor of mathematics at the University of Padua ‘when he vas 28, He developed a new method for making lenses and used the new technology to study the motions of the planets, He concluded that the sun (as Copernicus claimed), not the Earth (as the ancient scholar Prolemy had claimed), was at the center ofthe solar system. ‘This was one mote threat to their authority that church leaders didn't need at the time. They already had their hands fall, whae with breakaway factions in the Reformation and other political problems. The church reaffirmed its offical sup- port for the Ptolemaic theory, andin 1616 Galileo was ordered not to espouse either his ref 12 | BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH of it or his support forthe Copernican heliocen- trie (sun-centered) theory of the heavens. Galileo waited 16 years and published the book that established science as an effective method for seeking knowledge. The book's ttle ‘was Dialogue Concerning the Tivo Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican, and it still makes fascinating reading (Galilei 1967 (1632). Beeween the direct observational evidence that he hhad gathered with his telescopes and the mathe- matical analyses that he developed for making sense of his data, Galileo hardly had to espouse anything. The Prolemsic theory was simply ren- dered obsolete. In 1633, Galileo was convicted by the Inguisi- tion for heresy and disobedience. He was ordered to tecant his sinful teachings and was confined 10 house arrest until his death in 1642. He nearly published and perished. For the record, in 1992 Pope John Paul Il apologized for the Roman Catholie Church's condemnation of Galileo.) Bacon and Descartes ‘Two other figures ate often cited as founders fof modern scientific thinking: Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and René Descartes (1596-1650). Bacon is knowa for his emphasis on induction, the use of direct observation to confirm ideas and the linking together of observed facts to form theories or explanations how natural phenom- ena work. Bacon coreeally never told us how t0 get ideas or how to accomplish the linkage of ‘empirical facts, Those activities remain essentially Ihumanistie—you think hard ‘To Bacon goes the dubious honor of being the first *marye of empiricism.” In March 1626, at the age of 65, Bacon was driving though a uel area north of London. He had an idea that cold right delay the biologial process of purrefac- tion, so he stopped his carriage, bought a hen from a local resident, kiled the hen, and seaffed Jwith snow. Bacon was right—the cold snow did keep the bird from rotting —buthe himself caught bronchitis and died a month later (Lea 1980). Descartes dida’t make any systematic, direct observations—he did neither fieldwork nor ex- periments—butin his Discourse on Method (1960 {1637) and particufarly in ismonumental Meai- ‘ations (1993 [1641], he disingushed berween the mind and all external material phenomena. He also outlined clealy his vision ofa univers science of nature based on direct experience ard the application of reason—that is, observation and theory (for more on Desearted’s influence on the development of science, see Schuster 19775 Markie 1986; Hausman and Hausman 1997). Newton Isaac Newton (1643-1727) presed the scen- ttle revolution at Cambridge University. He i= vented caleulis and used it to develop celestial mechanics and other areas of physics. Just as important, he devised the Pypothetico-deductive model of science that combines both induction (empirical observation) and deduction (reason) into a single, unified method (Toulmin 1980). Jn this model, which more accurately reflecs how scientists acually conduct their work, i rakes no difference where you get an idea: fromm data, from a conversation with your brother-i- Jaw 0 from just plain, hard, ceflexive thinking, ‘What maters is whether you can fest your idea agains data in the real world This model seers rudimentary t0 us nov, but it is of fundamental importance and was quite revolutionary in the Inte seventeenth century, Science, Money, and War ‘The scientific approach to knowledge was es- tablished just as Europe began to experience the growth of industry and the development of large cities. Those cities were filled with uneducated factory laborers. This created anced for increased productivity in agrculrure among those not en- ‘gaged in industrial work. Optimism for science ran high, as it became obvious that the new method for acquiring knowledge about natural phenomena promised bigger crops, more productive industry, and more successful military campaigns. ‘The organizing mandate for the Trench Academy of Science (1666) included a modest proposal vo study “the explosive force of gunpowder enclosed Gin small amounts) in an icon or very thick copper box” (Easlea 19802216), —* [As the potential benefits of science became evi- dent, political support increased across Europe. More scientists were produced; more university posts were created for them ¢ work in. More laboratories were established atacademic centers, Journals and learned societies developed as seen tists sought more outlets for publishing their work, Sharing knowledge through journals made it easier for scientists to do theit own work and to advance through the university ranks, Publish- ing and sharing knowledge became 2 material ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENCE | 13 benefit, and the behaviors were soon supported by avalue, a nom, ‘The norm was so strong that European nations at war allowed enemy scientists to cross their borders freely in pursuit of knowledge. In 1780, Reverend Samuel Williams of Harvard University applied for and received a grant from the Massa chusetts legislature to observe a tora eclipse ofthe ssun predicted for October 27, The perfect spot, he said, was an island off the coast of Massachu- Unfortunately, Williams and his party would have to cross Penobscot Bay. The American Revo- lutionary War was still on, and the bay was con- trolled by the British, The speaker of the Massa-

    You might also like