Methodological problems of the social sciences. Misunderstandings and clarifications

Authors

  • A. Fusari

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.65.4564

Abstract

Growing technological changes and innovation make it increasingly difficult to understand the course of social reality, while the intensification of the relations between different regions of the Earth and the power achieved by financial capital on a world scale amplify the dimensions and visibility of disequilibria and iniquities, and sharpen frustration and sentiments of insecurity. The roots of this theoretical and practical confusion are identified, in our paper for submission, with the adoption within the social sciences of the method of observation and verification. This may seem surprising in the light of the fact that the triumph of this method facilitated the emergence of the modern natural (and mechanical) sciences. And in fact, just this success has propelled the extension of the observation-verification method into the social sciences, where it is today dominant. The deficiencies of this method in the analysis of social reality are, however, masked by the trappings of scientific rigour imparted, which is often enhanced by additional borrowing of method from the mathematical and formal sciences. It must be recognized that the observation-verification works well when applied to quasi-stationary societies, where the key hypothesis of the repetitiveness (or quasi-repetitiveness) of events typical of the natural sciences and the corresponding method is fulfilled. But with the advent of modern dynamic society, itself very much an effect of the great advancement of the natural and formal sciences, the failure of the methodologies of these sciences with regard to the analysis of social reality has become increasingly marked and its consequences ever more devastating. My book Methodological Misconceptions in the Social Sciences, Springer 2014, was dedicated to an accurate analysis of this embarrassing situation and a consideration of ways to remedy it. The most efficacious way to meet this fleeting social reality seems to be to scientifically highlight basic institutions, economic behaviour and values with their steady changes caused by the accumulation of creative and choice processes. In doing so, long-run trends can be explored in order to understand and manage the disequilibrating-reequilibrating motion characterizing the life of dynamic societies.

References

Boudon, R. (2005). The poverty of relativism. Oxford: Bardwell

Di Nuoscio, V. (2006). Il mestiere dello scienziato sociale. Napoli: Liguori Editore

Ekstedt, H. e Fusari A. (2010). Economic theory and social change. Problems and revisions. London/New York: Routledge

Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method Milano: Feltrinelli

Fusari, A. (2014). Methodological misconceptions in the social sciences. Rethinking social thought and social processes. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer

Fusari, A. (2016). Understanding the course of social reality. The necessity of institutional and ethical transformations of utopian flavour. Springer, Switzerland

Fusari, A. (2017). A new economics for modern dynamic economies. Innovation, uncertainty and entrepreneurship.. New York and Abingdon Oxon: Routledge

Galilei, G. (2001) Sidereus nuncius. Letteratura Universale/ Esperia

Hayek, F. A. (1949). Individualism and economic order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Hayek, F. A. (1999). The fatal conceit. The errors of socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Hegel, G. W. (1987). Enciclopedia delle scienze filosofiche in compendio (A. Negri Ed), Bari: Laterza

Hermann, A.(2015). The sistemic nature of the economic crisis. The perspecives of heterodox economics and psychoanalysis. Routledge, Abingdon and New York

Hobbes, T. (2006). Leviatan. Roma: Editori Riuniti

Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Evolution and institutions. Chelthenam/Northampton: Edward Elgar

Hume, D. (1997). Un’inchiesta sui principi della morale. Laterza: Bari e Roma

Kant, I (1982). The critique of pure reason. The critique of practical reason. The critique of jujudgements. William Benton Publisher/ Enciclopedia Britannica

Kuhn, T. (1978). LThe structure of scientific revolutions. Torino: Einaudi

Lakatos, I. (1984) ‘The history of science and its rational reconstruction’. In, I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.). Citicism and growth of knowlwdge. Milano: Feltrinelli

Lawson, T. (2006). ‘The nature of heterodox economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30. 483-505

Levi-Strauss, C. (1968). La vie familiale et sociale des Indiens Nambikwara. Paris : Societé des Americanistes

Mandeville, B. (2000). The fable of bees. Bari: Laterza

Myrdal, G. (1966). Il valore nella teoria sociale. Torino: Einaudi

North, D. C. (1993). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Pareto, V. (1960). Oeuvres complete (publié sous la direction de G. Basino). Genève: Librairie Droz

Parsons, T. (1987). The structure of social action. Bologna: Il Mulino

Pellicani, L. L. (2006 ). La genesi del capitalismo e l’origine della modernità. Cosenza: Marco Editore

Pera, M. (1982). Apologia del metodo. Bari: Laterza

Popper, K. R. (1976). The poverty of historicism. London/Hanley: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Smith, A. (1995). La teoria dei sentimenti morali. Milano: Rizzoli

Spencer, H. (1896), The study of sociology. New York: D. Appleton and Company

Weber, M. (1974). The method of the social-historical sciences, Torino: Einaudi

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press

Downloads

Published

2018-05-29

How to Cite

Fusari, A. (2018). Methodological problems of the social sciences. Misunderstandings and clarifications. Archives of Business Research, 6(5), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.65.4564