D. Gile principles CSA1 PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’: A REMINDER Daniel Gile [email protected] .

D. Gile principles CSA 1

PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’:A REMINDER

Daniel Gile

[email protected]

www.cirinandgile.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cirinandgile.com/


Speaker’s bias

- Initial training in mathematics- Also training in sociology

(empirical studies orientation)- No training in humanities

- Observation of research practice as an interpreter in scientific conferences

- Teaching research methods in mixed environments (students of Japanese, T&I and terminology students)- Analysis of research in humanities through contact

with translation research


Science: a reminder (1)

Our knowledge about the World/representation of the World comes from:

- Experiential knowledge (direct experience through sensory experience and its

analysis)

- Inherited knowledge (what we learn from others)

- What our brain does with the information



The acquisition of data and their processing by the brain are chronically constrained by:

- Sensory limitations

- Cognitive limitations

- Emotional interference(which tends inter alia to make us see what we want to/expect to see and disregard what we would not like

to see/do not expect)



Recognizing these limitations,

philosophers and scientists

have been developing for centuries

what came to be known as the ‘Scientific Approach’

in order to push them back as far as possible

(but it is not expected they can be eradicated)


Science: a reminder (4)SA was first used in natural sciences,

it was also imported into social sciences and into some human sciences, e.g. history

in a form which I will call“Canonical Scientific Approach” (CSA) because of its prescriptive, idealized form

(not reflected 100% in the actual practice of science)

Some of its norms (in particular writing norms) are found in many disciplines of human sciences as well

On the whole, it is found in empirical disciplines rather than in theoretical disciplines


Norms and methods

CSA can be represented through:

- Conceptual Norms- Social norms and institutions to enforce their

implementation (academic hierarchy, peer reviewing…)

Social norms and institutions are very similar in CSA and in non-CSA academic disciplines

- Technical research methods- Writing norms


CSA Conceptual norms (1)

‘Science’ is supposed to beSkeptical

(due to its awareness of human limitations in exploring reality),

and therefore‘rigorous’, more specifically:

- Systematic- Cautious

- As objective as possible- Logical

(Logic being an ‘objective’ tool for testing truth) - Critical

(looking for potential flaws and weaknesses to fight them)



‘Science’ is supposed to be

Descriptive, explanatory and if possible predictive – not prescriptive

(but as citizens, scientists can take prescriptive positions)

‘Collective’ - Communicative

(hence the importance of publications)- Critical

(in a ‘collective’ sense) - Explicit when reporting research



In concrete terms, CSA scholars:

- Systematically conduct empirical testing of their ideas and theories

- Systematically provide data as evidence to back up claims

- Are explicit about their materials, methods and factual and/or logical grounds for their claims

- Make a clear distinction between documented facts and speculative thoughts (but speculation as such is not prohibited)


Implications (1)

CSA scholars always ask themselves (or are supposed to do so):

Have I used all my resources (knowledge, knowhow, data)

- To acquire as much relevant data as possible?- To observe and ‘measure’ whatever I observed and

measured as rigorously and objectively as possible?- To consider all possible interpretations of the data I have as

opposed to just one, my favorite?- To make sure my inferences are justified?- To make sure that in my writing, I make a clear distinction

between what I claim to know and what I believe?- …….


Implications (2)

For instance:

- Have I read all relevant publications to which I have access?- Have I made sure I really understand them?- Have I made sure I have not let myself be influenced by my

favorite theory and neglected other potential explanations for a phenomenon I have observed?

- Is the sample I have chosen a representative one?- Have I made sure I do not overgeneralize?- Have I made sure, when making inferences, that I am using

all the available data instead of just those that corroborate my ideas?

- …….


Weaknesses and limitations

More generally:

CSA scientists systematically attempt to identify weaknesses and limitations in their work (and in other people’s work)…

not for the purpose of criticizing, but for the purpose of improving whatever can be improved

In so doing, they know that there will always be limitations and weaknesses in scientific work,

(that their theories may be wrong, that their data may be biased, that their analyses may be flawed in spite of their best efforts)

but expect that these will be pushed back in their own future work and in other scientists’ future work


‘Scientific’ vs ‘Non-scientific’

More generally:

For many CSA scientists, any activity which does not comply with these norms is not ‘scientific’.

They refer to academic activity which does not comply with CSA as ‘philosophy’, ‘literature’…, anything but “science”

The position defended here is that such activity can be classified as science or research. It will be given the (too) general name of Human Sciences Approaches (HSA), knowing that :

- This is vague and encompasses multiple, different approaches

- Some Human (and social) sciences do follow CSA


THE CSA CYCLE (Popperian model)

OBSERVATION↓

THEORY↓

(EMPIRICAL) TESTING↓

NEW/IMPROVED THEORY↓

(EMPIRICAL) TESTING↓

. . .


The CSA CYCLE (perhaps more realistic)

OBSERVATION↓

THEORY↓

(EMPIRICAL) TESTING + SOCIAL FORCES↓

NEW/IMPROVED THEORY↓

(EMPIRICAL) TESTING + SOCIAL FORCES↓

. . .[ Inter alia: Kuhn’s theories of scientific (r)evolution ]


THEORIES and TESTING in CSA

THEORIES are considered PROVISIONAL MODELS/EXPLANATIONS of REALITY

Not ‘final’ explanations/accounts of Reality

They are TESTED SYSTEMATICALLY,With the EXPECTATION (IN PRINCIPLE!) THAT

… TESTS will INDUCE CHANGES in the THEORYand IMPROVE it


CSA is based on EMPIRICAL RESEARCH


MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CSA (1)

1. CSA is not essentially quantitativeCSA is based on empirical research and stays close to observable

evidence in its inferences. The evidence can be qualitative. Many questions which CSA seeks to answer are qualitative, and

often, numbers are only a tool to help researchers decide whether a qualitative feature is present or not.

2. CSA is not to be equated with experimental research (in which special conditions are set up for the sake of research).

It can just as well be naturalistic(in which phenomena are studied as they occur in nature)

*


MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CSA (2)

3. Speculation is not a dirty word in CSASpeculation (about the reason for something, the consequence of

something, a link between two things etc.) is very much part of CSA and a powerful engine for investigation. But it is

identified as such (as opposed to claims) and systematically leads to empirical tests whenever possible (which is not the

case in some approaches found in the human sciences)

4. CSA is not confined to the “hard sciences”(which are not necessarily harder than some “soft sciences”)

It can be found in some human sciences, such as history or archaelogy


HUMAN SCIENCES APPROACHES (HSA)

Very common in TS due to scholars’ background

- Mostly conceptual analysis – Essays

- Can be empirical – in a wide sense (with examples, not representative samples in the

statistical sense of the word, i.e. samples designed to represent the same features as the population)

- Can include personal interpretation of phenomena, statements, actions without necessarily considering/testing alternatives


THE HSA CYCLE

OBSERVATION or IDEAS/THEORIES↓

DISCUSSION

↓NEW/IMPROVED (?) THEORIES

↓…DISCUSSION

↓

NO EMPIRICAL TESTING

BUT EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM OTHER SCHOLARS’ STUDIES CAN BE TAKEN ON BOARD IN THE

DISCUSSION



HSA vs. CSA

- HSA is less cautious (No strong requirement that samples be representative

No testing requirement before claims are made)- Less stringent objectivity requirement

- Less stringent factual explicitness requirement(but more stringent conceptual definitions requirement)

Authors can make claims without explicating their tentative nature (as speculation), without testing them, without

trying to provide factual evidence systematically.

So not fully compliant with fundamental CSA norms, often clashes with them


HSA INFERIOR/SUPERIOR TO CSA?

Perhaps less reliablebut

- Faster (reflection can progress w/o waiting for data and tests)

- Some theories cannot be tested or tested well (when it is difficult to find valid measurable indicators, when there is high variability…)

HSA do provide a way for exploring phenomena collectively and critically.

…so it does not make sense to say HSA or CSA is “inferior” in absolute terms


CSA vs. HSA and other types of exploration of reality

- No claim that CSA is better than HSA

- No claim that CSA is better than direct experience, intuition and other ways of exploring the world

- Non-scientific exploration often leads to faster and more extensive knowledge acquisition

- No special value to “Science”

- But CSA corresponds to a specific approach and behavior, partly different from HSA


Typical objectives of CSA vs. HSA studies

CSA- Explore/find out about something- Test a theory- Develop a method to explore stng/test stng, develop a theory …

HSA- Think about a phenomenon (its meaning, relations with other phenomena,…)- Develop a theory- Analyze a theory- Compare theories- Develop conceptual classifications …


WHY DIFFERENTIATE CSA FROM HSA? (1)

Criticized in CSA, accepted in HSA:- “Unsubstantiated claims”- “Personal, subjective conclusions”- “Interpretation of phenomena without considering alternative explanations”- “Theories without intent to test them”- “Classifications with no apparent purpose”- “Prescriptive & judgmental attitudes”- “Not quite comprehensive/accurate representation of

facts”- “Biased selection of examples”



Criticized in HSA, acceptable in CSA:

- “Concepts defined operationally are not defined well enough conceptually”

- “Focus too narrow (failure to address more relevant aspects for practical or methodoloogical reasons), so exploration incomplete”

- “Focus too narrow, focuses on one theory only whereas there are many…”

- “Pointless accumulation of data”

- “Research with no social relevance”



Note that many texts in TS are extra-paradigmatic

- Didactic texts, - Prescriptive texts with little theory, - Analyses with little theory, - Descriptions with no research context…

But doctoral work is generally required to contribute to “research”

and will be judged paradigmatically

So need to know which set of norms to follow


IS THERE A MIDDLE WAY BETWEEN CSA HSA OR RESEARCH WHICH SATISFIES BOTH ?

Cannot think of a conceptual reason why good CSA should not be able to meet HSA criteria if its

theoretical component is strong enough…

But have never seen TS theses or dissertations which meet all the requirements

Experience shows that is difficult enough to meet one set of requirements

Especially when no hands-on training in CSA is provided


FURTHER WISE (?) THOUGHTS (1)

1. Denying the existence of CSA and HSA in TS is counterproductive

2. In TS, the co-existence of CSA and HSA is a good thing, because of cross-fertilization possibilities

3. It is important to (try to) allay the fears that fundamentally, one threatens the other… but also to make sure that both have some space to live in and develop

4. It is important for TS scholars from both sets of approaches to understand the differences between them to foster better appreciation of each other’s work and prevent damaging misunderstandings


FURTHER WISE (?) THOUGHTS (2)

5. To become a good CSA researcher, it is not enough to get acquainted with research methods through reading or to learn how to use statistics packages. The type of skeptical, rigorous thinking which is required needs hands-on, supervised training (perhaps shorter training time required for mathematicians and lawyers?)

6. I believe in the virtues of CSA training for all, including those wishing to conduct HSA research, as this could help them be more rigorous.

HSA training for all?

7. CSA training through critical reading exercises, research design exercises, simple empirical studies exercises

Date post:	18-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buck-butler
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

D. Gile principles CSA1 PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’: A REMINDER Daniel Gile [email protected] .

Documents