Introduction

• The chapter questions if social inquiry can truly be objective or value-free.

• Values influencing research objectivity and practices are examined.
• The debate extends beyond methods to the possibility of objective social inquiry.
• Avoiding bias in research connected to personal values is essential.
• Biases can arise consciously or unconsciously and should be acknowledged.
• The distinction between facts and values is central to positivism but challenged by interpretivism.
• Critical Theory approaches reject this distinction, emphasizing biases and politics in research.
• Constructivism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, and feminist theory are part of this
rejection.
• These approaches widen social inquiry by exposing biases, inequalities, and politics.
• The chapter specifically delves into value-free inquiry within political studies.
• The intrusion of values into social-scientific inquiry is explored in terms of biases, observation,
and interpretation.
Laws, Explanation, and Interpretation
in the Study of the Social World
• Political research reflects the positivist distinction between empirical and normative research.
• Empirical research deals with questions about what is, relying on empirical data for answers.
• Normative research addresses questions of what ought or should be, often involving moral issues.
• Positivists assert that separating empirical and normative questions maintains objectivity.
• Researchers tend to emphasize empirical questions as facts, while normative questions are
discussed without rigorous empirical study.
• Critics challenge the empirical/normative divide, arguing that all theory is inherently normative.
• Scholars make normative assumptions when selecting, interpreting, and articulating research
significance.
• Robert Cox’s perspective asserts that all theory reflects values and is meant for specific purposes.
• This challenges the idea of separating facts from values in political research.
Values, the researcher, and the research
process
• Max Weber’s perspective highlights the relationship between values, researchers, and the research
process.
• Weber asserts that facts and values can be distinguished, but value-neutrality is not possible in social
sciences.
• Weber argues that researchers’ values influence problem selection, interpretation of facts, and
conclusions.
• Despite this, Weber encourages striving for value-neutral social science by adhering to scientific
standards.
• Critics challenge the division between facts and values, arguing that all theory is normative.
• Scholars like Nagel support Weber’s position, suggesting that values can be minimized in research.
• Nagel discusses minimizing biases, acknowledging that certain biases are difficult to identify and
control.
• The “Rosenthal Effect” illustrates how researcher expectations can influence subjects’ behavior.
• Despite challenges, maintaining self-awareness, transparency, and critical inquiry can lead to valid
and reliable knowledge.
Values, the researcher, and the
research process
• Despite evidence of bias influencing research, it’s argued that social science can still achieve
objectivity.
• Practical challenges to achieving unbiased findings in social science exist but are not
insurmountable.
• Biases can result not only from researchers’ personal biases but also from the research process
itself.
• The “going native” bias arises when researchers become too involved with their subjects.
• The “Heisenberg Effect” suggests that the act of observation can change behavior, as observed in
politics and research.
• For instance, Charles Frankel’s experience revealed that government officials changed their actions
upon knowing they were being observed.
• Researchers address this issue by using less intrusive methods, such as content analysis, to avoid
changing behavior.
• Content analysis allows researchers to study past policy positions recorded in texts, which remain
unchanged.
Values, the researcher, and the
research process
• Beyond changing behavior through observation, a more intricate issue arises: behavior might
change due to the results of studying it.
• This problem is especially pertinent when theories meant to explain outcomes alter practices,
resulting in self-fulfilling prophecies.
• The challenge lies in separating facts (observations) from values (theories) when theories
influence the very observations meant to test them.
• Karl Popper’s critique of classical positivism highlights the need for deduction and falsification in
science, but it assumes observations are independent of theories.
• Thomas Kuhn and others argue that observation is “theory-laden” and that interpretations of
facts are intertwined with theoretical notions and background knowledge.
• The example of the duck/rabbit picture illustrates how perception and theoretical interpretation
are simultaneous; what we observe depends on how we describe it.
• This notion challenges the idea of mind-independent facts and highlights the interplay between
observation and theory.
Duck or Rabbit? Source: J. Jastrow (1899).
.
Values, the researcher, and the research
process
• Popper’s second argument emphasizes falsification over verification as the goal of
science, assuming a rigorous application of reason where theories are discarded
when falsified.
• However, critics like philosopher Thomas Kuhn contend that Popper’s view is an
idealized representation of science.
• Kuhn’s perspective, outlined in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962),
asserts that science is a social institution governed by shared paradigms—
common conceptual frameworks defining research objectives and methods.
• Kuhn’s argument challenges the notion of unrelenting testing and emphasizes the
influence of social factors and paradigmatic conformity on scientific
development.
• This viewpoint has sparked controversy and discussion for decades due to its
implications for the fact-value distinction and the objectivity of scientific
knowledge.
Values and Social Practice
• Kuhn’s book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” sparked significant
controversy and is considered one of the most influential works in the philosophy
of science.
• Kuhn challenges the idea of separating facts and values in scientific research by
highlighting the value-laden social practices that shape scientific inquiry.
• He argues that scientific knowledge doesn’t progress through logical stages and
gradual accumulation, but rather through a social process influenced by
paradigms.
• Kuhn introduces the concept of a “paradigm” as a shared conceptual framework
defining research objectives and methods.
• Once a paradigm is established, “normal science” follows, aiming to fit nature
into the preformed paradigm, potentially ignoring phenomena that don't fit.
Values and Social Practice
• Kuhn’s arguments caused a crisis of objectivity in both natural and social sciences,
challenging the idea of science as a rational, progressive pursuit of truth.
• Positivists assert that scientific principles from the natural sciences must apply to
the study of politics, but Kuhn challenges the objectivity of natural sciences and
the growth of scientific knowledge.
• Kuhn argues that truth-claims’ validity is based on consensus within a scholarly
community and that science’s notion of “truth” relies on the agreement of
competent members of the community.
• Academic practices, journals, and research orientations reflect specific
explanatory frameworks, potentially marginalizing alternative approaches.
• Kuhn’s arguments blur the distinction between fact and value in science,
emphasizing its inherently social nature, centered around shared paradigms.
Paradigms and Paradigm Change
• Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” proposes that the history of science
can be understood through “paradigm shifts,” which occur when anomalies challenge
the assumptions of the prevailing paradigm.
• These shifts are not gradual and logical progressions but rather resemble social or
political revolutions, leading to the emergence of new scientific paradigms.
• The model Kuhn develops outlines the progression of scientific development, starting
with a pre-paradigmatic phase characterized by random and diverse investigation due
to the absence of a dominant paradigm.
• The next phase involves the triumph of a pre-paradigmatic school, leading to the
establishment of a paradigm. Scientific investigation becomes directed and focused,
marking the phase of “normal science.”
• During “normal science,” researchers operate within the paradigm’s limits and focus on
solving puzzles implied by the paradigm. This work includes empirical and theoretical
aspects.
Paradigms and Paradigm Change
• Normal science assumes that the scientific community understands the world, and
researchers work to fit nature into the conceptual framework of the paradigm.
• Anomalies, deviations from the paradigm’s assumptions, can emerge from
research or real-world events. Small anomalies generally don't lead to paradigm
shifts.
• However, if anomalies grow in number or fundamental nature, they may lead to a
crisis. Practical importance can also trigger a crisis, causing the field to search for
solutions.
• Scientists often resist change and may attempt to accommodate anomalies within
the existing paradigm.
• Even in times of crisis, a paradigm won’t be abandoned unless a viable alternative
paradigm exists to replace it. This reluctance to shift paradigms helps maintain
stability in scientific communities.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhnian Paradigms and Political Studies: the
Case of Development Theory
Paradigms in Political Studies: Overview
• Paradigms are overarching worldviews or theoretical frameworks in political
studies.
• They shape research questions, interpretations, theories, and policy
recommendations.
• Each paradigm is built upon assumptions about human nature, society, and
politics.
Key Characteristics of Paradigms:
• Worldviews and Theoretical Frameworks.
• Assumptions and Consequences.
• Influence on Behavior and Action.
• Implications for Prescriptions and Policies.
Kuhnian Paradigms and Political Studies:
the Case of Development Theory
Multiple Paradigms in Politics:
• Different paradigms coexist, offering diverse perspectives on political
phenomena.
• Each paradigm leads to distinct theories and research approaches.
• Scholars adopt paradigms that align with their assumptions and perspectives.
Paradigms in Development Studies: Example
• Modernization Paradigm:
- Societies progress through stages towards Westernization.
• Dependency Paradigm:
- Global economic relations perpetuate underdevelopment.
• Neoliberal Paradigm:
- Free markets and deregulation drive economic growth.
• Post-Development Paradigm:
- Challenges linear notions of development and progress.
Paradigms and the Study of
Development
Dominant Paradigms in Development Studies: Modernization and
Dependency
• Theoretical frameworks shaping development studies.
• Modernization theory and dependency theory as paradigms.
Modernization Theory: Post-WWII Paradigm
• Emerged post-WWII in the US.
• Focused on capitalist economic development.
• Emphasized intervention by advanced countries.
• Assumed convergence of industrialization and progress.
Anomaly and Challenge to Modernization Theory
• Anomaly: Lack of progress in ‘developing’ countries.
• Convergence of industrialization ≠ Convergence of incomes.
• Challenge to core assumptions.
Paradigms and the Study of
Development
Rise of Dependency Theory: Late 1960s
• Explanation for the anomaly.
• Worldwide process of unequal benefits.
• Controlled by developed economies.
• Uneven relations and reinforcing inequalities.
Dependency Theory Anomaly and Criticisms
• Challenge to dependency theory: Rapid industrialization.
• Response: Multinational control and unequal benefits.
• Critics: Unconvincing explanations, disregard of internal factors.
Stalemate and Paradigmatic Conformity
• Impasse between the two paradigms.
• Failure to revise, synthesize, or reach consensus.
• Strong attachment to core assumptions.
Paradigms and the Study of
Development
Development Studies as Ideological
• Driven by ideological commitments, less rigorous investigation.
• Paradigm followers ignore disconfirming evidence.
• Scholars influenced by personal beliefs, values, and experiences.
• Paradigms exclude alternative interpretations.
Transition and Shift in Paradigms
• Paradigm shifts like political regime changes.
• Overthrow of modernization theory by dependency theory.
• Dependency theory's own collapse due to contradictions.
• Paradigmatic conformity breaks down.
Post-Normal Science: Funtowicz and Ravetz
• Proposed in response to high uncertainty, risk, and urgency.
• Democratization of science, involving stakeholders.
• Extended peer community, inclusion of diverse perspectives.
• Enriching scientific practice for complex problems.
Paradigms and the Study of
Development
Kuhn’s Influence on Social Science
• Kuhn’s ideas continue shaping social science discussions.
• Reflection on social-scientific enterprise.
• Ongoing debates on research methods and validation.
Alternative Conceptions of Science
• Funtowicz and Ravetz’s post-normal science.
• Democratization and inclusivity in complex problem-solving.
Imre Lakatos and Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos’ Rejection of Kuhn’s Model
• Lakatos rejects Kuhn’s relativistic model of scientific progress.
• Calls it “mob-psychology” and emphasizes critical rationality.
Scientific Research Programme vs. Paradigm
• Lakatos replaces Kuhn’s “paradigm” with “scientific research programme.”
• Highlights critical and rational nature of scientific change.
Components of Research Programme
• “Hard core” with general hypotheses.
• “Protective belt” of auxiliary assumptions.
Methodological Rules: Positive and Negative Heuristics
• Positive heuristic: Guides research related to protective belt.
• Negative heuristic: Avoid questioning or modifying hard core.
Imre Lakatos’ Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes
Imre Lakatos’ Methodology of Scientific Research
Programmes
Progressive vs. Degenerating Research Programmes
• A research programme progresses through problem-shifts.
• Progressive problem-shifts lead to the discovery of novel facts.
Criteria for Progression
• A series of theories is theoretically progressive if each new theory has more
content than the previous one.
• Empirically progressive if the additional content is corroborated by evidence.
• A problem shift is progressive if both theoretically and empirically
progressive, otherwise degenerating.
Assessing Research Programmes
• Compare competing research programmes based on progress or
degeneration.
• Evaluate problem-shifts for their level of progress.
Imre Lakatos’ Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes
Measuring Progression
• Determine if a problem-shift leads to accepting a theory with more novel
facts than anomalies.
Visual Representation
• Figure 3.4 illustrates how to assess progress based on the ratio of novel facts
to anomalies.
Imre Lakatos’ Methodology of Scientific
Research Programmes
Comparison of Research Programmes
• Research programme A is preferred over B if A is more progressive or degenerates less.
• Continually ad hoc changes to protective belt may lead to rejection of the programme.
• Science is both progressive and rational.
Development of Research Programmes
• Lakatosian model applies to development theories.
• Modernization theory and Marxist theory seen as research programmes, not
paradigms.
• Crisis in modernization theory led to internal restructuring, not paradigm shift.
• Dependency theory emerged as a radical alternative and evolved into a richer Marxist
analysis.
• Both traditions co-existed, endured, and prospered due to their fundamentally sound
essence and progressive adjustments.
The Role of Values in Research: Kuhn
and Lakatos compared
Similarities Between Kuhn and Lakatos
• Both models address how scientists work within theoretical assumptions.
• Both Kuhn's paradigm and Lakatos’ research programme describe the same
phenomenon.
• They both discuss the “hard core” of assumptions in a research program.
Differences in Explanations
• Kuhn attributes paradigmatic conformity to scientific communities and
cultural factors.
• Lakatos argues that defending a research program's core is a rational
methodological decision.
The Role of Values in Research: Kuhn
and Lakatos compared
Differences in Model Outcomes
• Kuhn’s model suggests paradigm shifts influenced by political and cultural
factors.
• Lakatos’ model emphasizes rational theory development through research
programs.
Subjectivity in Both Models
• Lakatos criticizes Kuhn’s subjectivity but faces similar challenges.
• Lakatos’ model involves subjective judgement in evaluating progress and
degeneration.
Value-laden Nature of Research
• Regardless of approach, research contains subjective valuations.
• Researchers must be explicit and self-critical about their assumptions and
values.