The view that social sciences are very different from other forms of science is common, hence the need to develop special methods. In section 1.1 it is argued that, although there are some important differences, modern developments both in social sciences and in what are called here natural sciences tend to reduce them, pointing towards a common methodological framework. This idea serves as an introduction to further sections where the scientific method for the social sciences is outlined, and then is shown the role that models play in it.

Natural and social sciences: the hypothesis of convergency

Traditionally, social sciences have been considered a very special form of science, different from biology, physics or natural sciences in general. Many arguments are put forward to support this distinction. By contrast, social phenomena are considered to be ever:changing. It may well be that in natural sciences theories themselves change and old ones are replaced by new ones, but once adopted, they are considered as permanent. If social phenomena are ever:changing, social theories may be valid only for a short period of time; that is, they have a particular historical reference.

Because it is generally assumed that natural phenomena are permanent, theories that successfully explain their past behaviour have strong predictive power. In social sciences, even if a theory has been very successful in explaining a phenomenon that occurred in the past, it can only provide predictions as long as the historical conditions prevail.

Another difference that is commonly pointed out is that natural phenomena can be reproduced in the controlled conditions of a laboratory, which isolates them from unwanted externalities. The use of experiments has become a key element in the creation of knowledge in natural sciences.