• Book Review

  Buchrezension: Die Buchbesprechung von Gestaltung der Sozialforschung

  Posted by Yazdan Keikhosrou Doulatyari on August 19, 2023 at 11:49 am

  The distinction between “explanation” (erklären) and “understanding” (verstehen) has a long history among German scholars. While some authors have argued that causal explanation is suitable for natural sciences and reason-based explanation is appropriate for social or human sciences, there are other authors who believe that both types of explanation can be used in social sciences. The position adopted in Blaikie’s book is that both explanation and understanding are suitable objectives for social sciences, but they provide different types of reasonable explanations.

  Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation focuses: One of its primary objectives is to “establish a subtle pathway that bridges the gap between interpretive and historical research within the social sciences”. By seamlessly integrating contemporary and tangible references, it seeks to create a scholarly connection and facilitate navigation within the realm of social science methodologies. This endeavor involved a meticulous examination of a well-regarded study within the field, ensuring a deep grasp of its content and objectives.

  The specific aim is to provide invaluable guidance to both social science students and researchers, aiding them in effectively implementing this method within the humanities and social sciences domain.

  “Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation” specifically focuses on quantitative social research design. The objective of this book is to introduce the main elements involved in conducting research in the social sciences. It also provides a comprehensive review of the issues faced by students, professors, and researchers in the social sciences when designing their research or thesis. The author effectively utilizes technical terms of research methodology, employs precise language, and offers detailed explanations, showcasing the efficiency of their scientific writing. The book extensively covers the literature review and its evolution. Norman Blaikie, the author, begins with an introduction that outlines the preliminaries and details of research. The book aims to introduce the logic of anticipation, emphasize the role of theory in social science research, and provide a critical understanding of research principles. Finally, the book presents four research topics as examples within four paradigms (inductive, deductive, reproductive, and abductive).

  The analogy used by Blaikie, titled “Scientists from Space,” is vividly and elaborately explained. The subject matter is such that scientists from space have no knowledge of the Earth. They attempt to familiarize themselves with the Earth and its inhabitants. Each group of these scientists follows its own method, which reflects their specific strategy for discovering the truth. Blaikie emphasizes that although there have been previous journeys from that planet to Earth, these journeys are carried out by scientists. Blaikie describes the encounter between the extraterrestrial social scientists and the unknowns of Earth, where a spaceship carrying alien social scientists’ lands on their territory in the near future. The inhabitants of the planet Yaraku Yayo (YY) had previously visited Earth, but this was the first time that social scientists arrived on Earth (Blaikie, 122)

  Rather than merely observing behaviors, the interrogative group believed that it was important to understand how the Earthlings interpret their own actions. In other words, they sought to comprehend the social reality of Earth as the Earthlings perceive it. They aimed to discover the everyday knowledge that Earthlings employ in their social interactions.

  The author’s point about the separation and connection between the researcher and the research environment is clear and supportive. In an article titled “Research Roles,” Blaikie discusses the important choice that all social researchers are compelled to make: their position regarding the research process and its participants. These positions range from complete detachment to complete integration, and at least six possible positions exist.

  The first position is the traditional “scientific” position of a detached observer. The second position is that of an empathetic observer. The researcher tries to put themselves in the shoes of the social actors, commonly referred to as “verstehen” (understanding). The third position is that of a faithful partner, where the researcher plays a lesser role of separation. The aim is to report the way of life in a manner that allows participants in the research to “speak in their own language.” The fourth position, which negates the idea of separation, is an extension of the third position. In this position, the researcher becomes a mediator of languages. The fifth position relates to critical theory. The researcher appears as a reflective partner engaged in liberating people from any form of oppression they experience. Another form of the fifth position, the sixth position, is relevant to feminist research and involves conscious partiality. Again, the focus is on liberation, specifically women’s liberation. In addition to these categorizations, Blaikie always presents relevant theoretical discussions. Following the above categorization, Blaikie discusses the following: Habermas rejects the “positivist illusion” following Husserl, according to which the world is considered an independent entity of the “observer.” If reflection on the constitutive elements of everyday social activities is pursued, then social researchers should also engage in the activities of their “daily” research.

  Qualitative research should include critical self-reflection by the researcher, or in other words, active contemplation. This means that the researcher must always consider their own actions and roles in the research process and apply the same critical reflection to them as they do to other “data.” The present critique in this section reminds us of one of the most important questions. Is the process of expanding the book and the author’s method for presenting its content logical, and correct? The answer is affirmative because the book is structured systematically to teach research design in the social sciences, and each part of the book discusses a stage of the process.

  In terms of critique, it is necessary to mention that the author has, on the one hand, applied the necessary precision in using specialized terms of research methodology, and on the other hand, has not imposed any specific topics or even unusual ones on other research method books. In the book, a certain degree of freedom is evident. It seems that the author is not obligated to repeat the content of other books, even important and authoritative ones. Blaikie has written the book in a way that suggests he himself is the central focus, and it is other authors who should follow him. This point is made to highlight that the discussion of hypothesis and the need for it in research has become so similar and repetitive in many books that it seems all the content comes from one source. However, Blaikie has written a section about the unnecessary existence of hypotheses in research, which in many studies become burdensome and troublesome. Furthermore, he shares his own experience: In my own research during the 1990s when I was working on my master’s thesis, I fell victim to this way of thinking. My thesis had over thirty hypotheses, most of which had weak connections to theory or previous research. The research was reported as if I had worked under the guidance of these hypotheses and systematically tested them. It wasn’t much more than rituals that I had to perform based on the agreements that existed at that time for.

  • This discussion was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Yazdan Keikhosrou Doulatyari.

  Yazdan Keikhosrou Doulatyari replied 1 year, 6 months ago 1 Member · 0 Replies
• 0 Replies

Log In to Reply