Me-Search All the Way Down

Matt Grossmann
{"title":"Me-Search All the Way Down","authors":"Matt Grossmann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197518977.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most commonly cited distinct difficulty of social science compared to science in general is that researchers are studying ourselves. But most thinkers have evolved toward a contemporary scientific realism on this point: there are biases, but they can be managed with close attention. Beyond perennial difficulties of self-knowledge, scholars tend to study their own time period, countries, and social groups, introducing additional biases while enabling research on how they affect our questions, methods, and interpretations. This often leads to accusations of “me-search,” especially by underrepresented minorities. But many of the same considerations that drive those critiques and their responses apply to scholars studying their own countries and time periods, and to all of us studying our own species. I argue that the successful history of racial and gender studies shows that progress requires acknowledgment of biases and diversification of viewpoints.","PeriodicalId":198266,"journal":{"name":"How Social Science Got Better","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"How Social Science Got Better","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197518977.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The most commonly cited distinct difficulty of social science compared to science in general is that researchers are studying ourselves. But most thinkers have evolved toward a contemporary scientific realism on this point: there are biases, but they can be managed with close attention. Beyond perennial difficulties of self-knowledge, scholars tend to study their own time period, countries, and social groups, introducing additional biases while enabling research on how they affect our questions, methods, and interpretations. This often leads to accusations of “me-search,” especially by underrepresented minorities. But many of the same considerations that drive those critiques and their responses apply to scholars studying their own countries and time periods, and to all of us studying our own species. I argue that the successful history of racial and gender studies shows that progress requires acknowledgment of biases and diversification of viewpoints.
我一直向下搜索
与一般科学相比,社会科学最常被提及的明显困难是,研究人员是在研究我们自己。但在这一点上,大多数思想家都朝着当代科学现实主义的方向发展:偏见是存在的,但它们可以通过密切关注来控制。除了自我认识的长期困难之外,学者们倾向于研究他们自己的时代、国家和社会群体,在研究它们如何影响我们的问题、方法和解释的同时,引入了额外的偏见。这通常会导致“自我搜索”的指责,尤其是那些未被充分代表的少数族裔。但是,推动这些批评及其回应的许多同样的考虑,适用于研究他们自己的国家和时期的学者,也适用于研究我们自己物种的所有人。我认为,种族和性别研究的成功历史表明,进步需要承认偏见和观点的多样化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信