IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tec/journl/v28y2022i1p170-202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The difficulty of making claims to knowledge in social science

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Gorard

    (Durham University Evidence Centre for Education)

  • Yiyi Tan

    (Durham University Evidence Centre for Education)

Abstract

This paper considers three common types of claim to research knowledge, and the relative difficulty of making each type of claim in an empirically and logically justified manner. Before this, the paper looks at some more general issues often raised when discussing knowledge in social science, such as the nature of truth and justified belief, the existence of "isms" and paradigms treated like fashion accessories that one can adopt or not at will, and the intrinsic limitations of how we get to know about the "stuff" we might want to make research claims about. The idea of this early section is to remove some potential obstacles, before arguing that none of these issues is relevant to the rest of the paper about the nature of claims in their most generic form, independent of things like specific methods of data collection. The first type of claim we identify is a fully descriptive one that only summarises the data observed. This is the easiest and safest kind of claim, but even these might suffer from non-random errors and inaccuracies. However, their biggest limitation is their lack of any wider utility. The second kind of claim is a generally descriptive one that makes statements about unobserved data on the basis of a fully descriptive claim. Here we meet Hume's problem of induction. These claims have two parts, and the inductive part cannot seemingly be justified by logic, inferential statistics (whether Fisher or Neyman-Pearson style), Carnap's inductive probabilities, or even necessarily by Popper's falsification process. The third type is a causal claim, which we argue must also be a general claim. We develop a model, based on the work of Mill and Bradford-Hill, of what a plausible causal claim entails. But it still has all of the problems emerging from the first two types of claim, and adds a further problem created by our inability to assess causes directly. The paper concludes by suggesting how social science can proceed most safely in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Gorard & Yiyi Tan, 2022. "The difficulty of making claims to knowledge in social science," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 28(1), pages 170-202, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:tec:journl:v:28:y:2022:i:1:p:170-202
    DOI: 10.47577/tssj.v28i1.5822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://techniumscience.com/index.php/socialsciences/article/view/5822/2043
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://techniumscience.com/index.php/socialsciences/article/view/5822
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.47577/tssj.v28i1.5822?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Geurts & Hans Roosendaal, 2001. "Estimating the Direction of Innovative Change Based on Theory and Mixed Methods," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 407-427, November.
    2. Joanna Sale & Lynne Lohfeld & Kevin Brazil, 2002. "Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cornelius Ewuoso, 2023. "Black box problem and African views of trust," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hertog, Friso den, 2002. "Blending Words & Numbers: Towards a Framework for Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Strategies for Organizational Research," Research Memorandum 027, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Haegeman, Karel & Marinelli, Elisabetta & Scapolo, Fabiana & Ricci, Andrea & Sokolov, Alexander, 2013. "Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 386-397.
    3. Petra C Gronholm & Oluwadamilola Onagbesan & Poonam Gardner-Sood, 2017. "Care coordinator views and experiences of physical health monitoring in clients with severe mental illness: A qualitative study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 63(7), pages 580-588, November.
    4. Rosalia Diaz‐Carrion & Macarena López‐Fernández & Pedro M. Romero‐Fernandez, 2020. "Sustainable human resource management and employee engagement: A holistic assessment instrument," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1749-1760, July.
    5. Eugenio De Gregorio & Ivana Tagliafico & Alfredo Verde, 2018. "A comparison of qualitatively and quantitatively driven analytic procedures of psychotherapeutic group sessions with deviant adolescents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1731-1760, July.
    6. Stephen Buetow, 2014. "How Can a Family Resemblances Approach Help to Typify Qualitative Research? Exploring the Complexity of Simplicity," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, October.
    7. Karen Bell & Eldin Fahmy & David Gordon, 2016. "Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 193-212, January.
    8. Gjoko Stamenkov, 2023. "Recommendations for improving research quality: relationships among constructs, verbs in hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, and triangulation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2923-2946, June.
    9. Monika Mynarska & Anna Matysiak, 2010. "Women's determination to combine childbearing and paid employment: How can a qualitative approach help us understand quantitative evidence?," Working Papers 26, Institute of Statistics and Demography, Warsaw School of Economics.
    10. Anita Mendiratta & Shveta Singh & Surendra Singh Yadav & Arvind Mahajan, 2023. "Bibliometric and Topic Modeling Analysis of Corporate Social Irresponsibility," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(3), pages 319-339, September.
    11. Luigi Doria & Luca Fantacci, 2018. "Evaluating complementary currencies: from the assessment of multiple social qualities to the discovery of a unique monetary sociality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1291-1314, May.
    12. Jana Uher, 2019. "Data generation methods across the empirical sciences: differences in the study phenomena’s accessibility and the processes of data encoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 221-246, January.
    13. Oliveira, Athila Leandro de & Coelho Junior, Marcondes Geraldo & Barros, Dalmo Arantes & Resende, Alexander Silva de & Sansevero, Jerônimo Boelsums Barreto & Borges, Luis Antônio Coimbra & Basso, Vane, 2020. "Revisiting the concept of “fiscal modules”: implications for restoration and conservation programs in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Achim Goerres & Katrin Prinzen, 2012. "Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 415-450, February.
    15. Yang Liu, 2022. "Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    16. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.
    17. Xiaoling Jin & Zhangshuai Yuan & Zhongyun Zhou, 2023. "Understanding the Antecedents and Effects of mHealth App Use in Pandemics: A Sequential Mixed-Method Investigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Izhak Berkovich, 2018. "Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2063-2077, September.
    19. Oumr Adnan Osra, 2017. "Urban transformation and sociocultural changes in King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) 2005-2020: Key research challenges," Journal of Advances in Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Yi-Hsing Hsieh, vol. 3(3), pages 135-151.
    20. Iwona Kolodziejczyk, 2015. "Mixed Methods for Study of Gender Issues in Access, Application, and Attitudes Toward ICT in Higher Education Institutions in Papua New Guinea," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Causal claims; Descriptive claims; Induction; Philosophy of science;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tec:journl:v:28:y:2022:i:1:p:170-202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tasente Tanase (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.