METHODOLOGY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
Year:2010 | Volume:16 | Issue:62|Papers Count:7

New centuries contain a typical conception and method selection and scientific philosophical studies, which have occurred in the five recent centuries. Their accumulation yields a spatial epistemology about the phenomena. Because it is necessary to understand the structure and the elements of this epistemology and its effects on human and social sciences, for example economics, we have studied some of these elements such as a mechanical conception about the world, empiricism, rationalism, scientism, humanism, and so on, in the enlightenment era. Their influences on the ideas and the conceptions of classical economists are also followed. The article findings show that the solutions, policies and debates which the classical economists have presented in their ages, have been overshadowed by these epistemological elements.

The factor of justice and the rate of society's attention to it are among the most important cultural factors of each society so that the attitude of any society to justice would clarify the other identity factors of that society. The aim of this essay is to survey the methodology of Rawls' Theory of Justice by using the method of philosophical analysis. Theory of Justice of Rawls is among the greatest contemporary theories of the West, and its research and analysis could lead us to an appropriate approach for presenting the theoretical foundations and implementation of justice-oriented patterns. With respect to this research, the most important innovation of Rawls is his methodology. He develops the principles of justice by conceptual analysis and by conventional instrument (by completion of Social Contract suggested by Locke, Rousseau and Kant). His most emphasis is being fair in the method of arriving to the principles of justice and to accomplish these principles. To achieve this purpose, he imagines people in a hypothetical primary situation that because of their ignorance of the future they would decide about the principles of fairness and finally reach to two main principles. Certainly, there are some criticisms about his methodology. Its advantages and disadvantages will be explained in the final part of this essay.

Ronald Coase introduced the concept of "transaction cost" into the economic literature. This contribution is evaluated as important as other path-breaking contributions, like the introduction of "Marginalism" and "substitution". One may ask how and according to which methodology Coase has been able to make such a vital contribution to and reform the economic theory. This study indicates the following statements as the cornerstones of Coase's methodology: 1. Economists must apply their box of tools to study economic systems and explain the reality; 2. Instead of appealing to completely abstract models, economists must study the actual way of resource allocation by rational actors; 3. Therefore, the best way of empirical study is gathering relevant documents and observations to understand the private solutions agents invent to solve the problem of scarcity; 4. Reunion of documents and observations is guided by the problem of the study; 5. This problem itself discloses via the recognized inconsistency between the state of the art of theory and observed reality; 6. In this course of action, theory is used as the benchmark to study new situations and 7. The last step of this theory construction process is generalization of theory by employing empirical findings. More reality-consistent theories are expected from this approach.

Thomas Kuhn proposed an original theory of science in 1962. Some scholars have claimed that what Kuhn called "paradigm," "normal science" and "scientific revolution" had been mentioned by Heidegger. For paradigm, they invoke mathematical nature of modern science, the need to interpretative worlds, and the horizon of knowledge. For normal science, the main basis is the projection of a ground plan. And, for scientific revolution, resistance of anomalies and radical revision in fundamental concepts of science are mentioned. We reject all these claims. Kuhn in his postscript to the second edition of Structure distinguished between "disciplinary matrix" and "exemplar." The latter is neglected by those scholars. The former was composed of four elements and was dependent on a particular community of specialists. But neither is considered by those scholars. Kuhn said that in normal science scientists solve puzzles. However, according to those scholars, Heidegger had said that scientists do other things. Anomalies were not sufficient for scientific revolution according to Kuhn. But they had been considered sufficient according to some scholars. I conclude that Heidegger had not had philosophical priority over Kuhn in these subjects.

Whiggish historiography takes modern achievements of present sciences as scales to judge the importance of ancient sciences. Whiggists divide history into two sides: good and wise scientists vs. bad and ignorant ones. They study the history of science to find the winners, with present-day criterion of "true" scientific claims.This paper firstly introduces Herbert Butterfield and his book on Whiggism. Butterfield in Whig Interpretation of History discusses and criticizes the idea of Whiggism as a deviate course in general historiography. Secondly, some examples from the history of astronomy will be presented and the issue of Whiggism in the historiography of science will be considered. The paper will be closed by some suggestions to avoid Whiggism in the history of science, and to what extend it is legitimate to use it.

Qualitative approach in recent decades came into the field of humanities and educational research and researchers attempt to find out some criteria to ensure about the conclusion of this kind of research. Therefore, they considered the issue of the validity of all qualitative research as a challenging and vital subject. In this paper, the researchers attempt to explore this concept by studying the research literature and following this goal with descriptive and analytical approaches. In this article, we introduce the major approaches about validity in the field of qualitative research. These approaches are traditional approach, holistic approach and aim–validity approach. The methods of achieving validity in each of these three approaches have been discussed. According to the authors, the holistic approach is better than other approaches and can solve the problem of validity in qualitative research.

In the philosophy of social sciences, some philosophers emphasize on the similarities of social and natural sciences with regard to the subject, method, and aim. Others observe fundamental differences in this respect. The most important arguments that the advocates of each side offer are listed in this article. Are the social sciences experimental in the same meaning that the natural sciences are? Are there any differences in their methods? Are the aims of social sciences similar to the aims of natural sciences? Do social sciences contain general statements similar to the natural laws in physical sciences? The texts of the general philosophy of social sciences are reviewed to explore the various responses to these questions.