The methodology of the social sciences

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521591041.058

55 - The methodology of the social sciences

from 13 - Philosophy and social science

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

James Bohman

Edited by

Thomas Baldwin

Show author details

James Bohman: Affiliation:
Saint Louis University
Thomas Baldwin: Affiliation:
University of York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

As the social sciences began to come into their own in the early part of the twentieth century, the utility of the Neo-Kantian dualism between the human (Geisteswissenschaften) and the natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften) once again became controversial. Previously philosophers who were in favour of this distinction saw it as the only way to save the human sciences from the encroachment of the natural sciences, especially from positivism’s denial of the status of ‘science’ to enquiries that did not issue in prediction and control. Such dualism demanded strict separation, marked by ontological differences involving distinctive features of the objects of study, such as their particularity rather than generality, or epistemological differences between understanding and empirical observation. After 1915 the participants in the debate changed as it shifted away from a conception of human sciences modelled on history or textual interpretation towards a debate about the social sciences themselves, specifically sociology and its theories of social action. Even those philosophers who maintained weakened versions of dualism did so for a different purpose. Distinctions were now formulated in methodological terms and the issue became how to understand distinct explanatory and interpretive tasks within the social sciences themselves.

Once formulated in methodological rather than ontological or transcendental terms, the divide between the sciences no longer seemed to be an unbridgeable gap. The issue now became not whether or not there are different legitimate methodologies, but whether they can be brought together in some methodological unity or should be left as a heterogeneous plurality of unrelated approaches. Once the discussion of the social sciences included well-developed disciplines as diverse as economics, sociology, and history, the task of distinguishing the human from the natural sciences became less important than that of figuring out how such disciplines and the diverse approaches within each of them might be brought ‘under one roof ’, as Max Weber demanded for sociology.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870–1945 , pp. 667 - 678

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521591041.058 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bell, D. (1990). Husserl, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, B., and Uebel, T. (1995). Between Science and Politics: The Philosophy of Otto Neurath, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Collingwood, R. G. (1940). An Essay on Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The Idea of History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cook, G. A. (1993). George Herbert Mead: The Making of a Social Pragmatist, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems, New York: Henry Holt. Repr. 1984 in Boydston, J. A. (ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, vol. II, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1935). Liberalism and Social Action, New York: Henry Holt. Repr. 1987 in Boydston, J. A. (ed.) John Dewey: The Later Works, vol. XI, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, New York: Henry Holt. Repr. 1988 in Boydston, J. A. (ed.) John Dewey: The Later Works, vol. XII, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Dreyfus, Hubert (1991). Being-in-the-World, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dussen, W. J. (1981). History as a Science: The Philosophy of R.G. Collingwood, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Factor, R. and Turner, S. (1984). Max Weber and the Dispute Over Reason and Value, London: Routledge, 1984.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1967). ‘Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften’, Philosophisches Rundschau 5. Trans. 1988 Nicholson, S. and Stark, J., On the Logic of The Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1968). Erkenntnis und Interesse, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Trans. 1971 Shapiro, J., Knowledge and Human Interest, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: Max Niemayer Verlag. Trans. 1962 Macquarrie, J. and Robinson, E., Being and Time, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Held, D. (1984). Introduction to Critical Theory, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (1944). Dialektik der Aufklärung (The Dialectic of Enlightenment), Amsterdam: Quierdo. Trans. 1969 Cumming, J., New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Horkheimer, M. (1931). ‘Die gegenwärtige Lage der Sozialphilosophie und die Aufgaben eines Instituts für Sozialforschung’, Frankfurter Universitätsreden 27. Trans. 1993 Hunter, G. F., Kramer, M., and Torpey, J., Between Philosophy and Social Science, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Horkheimer, M. (1937). ‘Traditionelle und kritische Theorie’, Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6. Trans. 1982 O'Connell, M., Critical Theory, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. (1936/1954). Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie, Husserliana, vol. VI. Trans. 1970 Carr, David, The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Joas, H. (1980). Praktische Intersubjektivität: Die Entwicklung des Werkes von George Herbert Mead, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Trans. 1985 Meyer, R., George Herbert Mead: A Contemporary Reexamination of his Thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mink, L. (1969). Mind, History and Dialectic, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Natanson, M. (1986). Anonymity: A Study in the Philosophy of Alfred Schütz, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Neurath, O. (1910). ‘Zur Theorie der Sozialwissenschaften’, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 34. Repr. 1981, ed. Haller, R. and Rütte, H., Gesammelte philosophische und methodologische Schriften, Vienna: Hölder, Pichler, Tempsky.Google Scholar

Neurath, O. (1913–46). Philosophical Papers 1913–1946. Trans. and ed. 1983 Cohen, R. and Neurath, M., Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Neurath, O. (1932). ‘Protocolsätze’, Erkenntnes 3 Transl. in Neurath, (1913–46).Google Scholar

Neurath, O. (1944). Foundations of the Social Sciences, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. II, no. 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rouse, Joseph (1988). Knowledge and Power, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Ryan, A. (1996). John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism, New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Schütz, A. (1932). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt, Vienna: Springer-Verlag. Trans. 1967 Walsh, G. and Lehnert, F., The Phenomenology of the Social World, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schütz, A. (1964). Collected Papers, vol. II, The Hague: Njihoff.CrossRef Google Scholar

Spiegelberg, Herbert. (1960). The Phenomenological Movement: An Historical Introduction, Phenomenologica 5/6, vols. I and II, The Hague: Njihoff.CrossRef Google Scholar

Uebel, T. (1992). Overcoming Logical Positivism from Within: The Emergence of Neurath’s Naturalism in the Vienna Circle’s Protocol Sentence Debate, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Wagner, H. (1983). Alfred Schütz: An Intellectual Biography, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Weber, Max (1921). Gesammelte politische Schriften. Munich: Drei Masken Verlag. Ed. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W., 1946 From Max Weber, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Weber, Max (1922a). Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Trans. and ed. 1949 Shils, E. and Finch, H. A., The Methodology of the Social Sciences, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Weber, Max (1922b). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Trans. 1978 Roth, G. and Wittich, C., Economy and Society, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Westbrook, Robert (1991). John Dewey and American Democracy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Wiggershaus, Rolf (1986). Die Frankfurter Schule, Munich: Hanser Verlag, 1986. Trans. 1994 Robertson, M., The Frankfurt School: Its Histories, Theories and Political Significance, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar