Scholar Entangled: The Unattainable Detachment in Social Inquiry

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Problemos Pub Date : 2021-10-15 DOI:10.15388/problemos.100.7
Juozas Kasputis
{"title":"Scholar Entangled: The Unattainable Detachment in Social Inquiry","authors":"Juozas Kasputis","doi":"10.15388/problemos.100.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The practice of social studies continues to be a complicated scientific endeavor. From an epistemological point of view, the social sciences, unlike the natural sciences, do not conform to the predominant definition of science. The existing differences among expositions of “science,” “inquiry,” and “studies” lie with the contested role of the intellectual who is embarked on understanding the social realm. The “maturity” of the social sciences is usually discussed in the context of objectivity and rationality. But continuing epistemological debates would be insufficient without reference to the scholar as a human studying humans. The philosophy of science has focused mainly on the procedures of knowledge accumulation, neglecting social context and its implications for inquiry. To address this neglect, this essay sets out first to retrace doubts about the role of the scholar that emerged with the institutionalization of the social sciences at the outset of the twentieth century and then to rethink these issues in terms of recent scientific developments. What surfaces is a new, participatory role for scholars that demands responsible contextualization and a broader conception of causal stories.","PeriodicalId":41448,"journal":{"name":"Problemos","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Problemos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/problemos.100.7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The practice of social studies continues to be a complicated scientific endeavor. From an epistemological point of view, the social sciences, unlike the natural sciences, do not conform to the predominant definition of science. The existing differences among expositions of “science,” “inquiry,” and “studies” lie with the contested role of the intellectual who is embarked on understanding the social realm. The “maturity” of the social sciences is usually discussed in the context of objectivity and rationality. But continuing epistemological debates would be insufficient without reference to the scholar as a human studying humans. The philosophy of science has focused mainly on the procedures of knowledge accumulation, neglecting social context and its implications for inquiry. To address this neglect, this essay sets out first to retrace doubts about the role of the scholar that emerged with the institutionalization of the social sciences at the outset of the twentieth century and then to rethink these issues in terms of recent scientific developments. What surfaces is a new, participatory role for scholars that demands responsible contextualization and a broader conception of causal stories.
学者的纠缠:社会探究中难以企及的超然
社会研究的实践仍然是一项复杂的科学努力。从认识论的观点来看,社会科学与自然科学不同,不符合科学的主流定义。对“科学”、“探究”和“研究”的阐述之间存在的差异在于,从事理解社会领域的知识分子所扮演的有争议的角色。社会科学的“成熟”通常是在客观和理性的背景下讨论的。但是,如果没有学者作为一个研究人类的人,继续认识论的辩论将是不够的。科学哲学主要关注知识积累的过程,而忽视了社会背景及其对探究的影响。为了解决这一问题,本文首先回顾了20世纪初随着社会科学的制度化而出现的对学者角色的怀疑,然后根据最近的科学发展重新思考这些问题。对学者来说,这是一个新的、参与性的角色,需要负责任的语境化和更广泛的因果故事概念。
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
Problemos
Problemos PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信