Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T15:51:52.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Method of Problems versus the Method of Topics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2011

Fred Eidlin
Fred Eidlin
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Confused students researching papers not knowing where they are going. Articles, lectures, and books on exciting topics that turn out to be boring. Such familiar phenomena are symptoms of a widespread, largely unconscious methodological habit of focusing on topics rather than problems. This habit rests on views about knowledge that are deeply ingrained in commonsense knowledge and in the methodology of mainstream social science. Such views saturate the understanding of scientific inquiry assumed by most methods textbooks. This article criticizes the method of topics and contrasts it with the method of problems. The word “topic” suggests that there is some surface to cover, but not why covering it might be interesting. Interesting research is problem-driven. It begins with a sense that something is amiss with existing knowledge and requires explanation. Problem-driven research begins, not with collection of data or facts, or with clarification of concepts, but with identification of inconsistencies or gaps in existing knowledge. It seeks to solve problems through free invention and severe criticism of hypotheses.

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 758 - 761
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

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.)

References

Agassi, Joseph. 1975a. “On Novelty.” In Science in Flux, pp. 51–73. Dordrecht: Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, Joseph. 1975b. “The Nature of Scientific Problems and Their Roots in Metaphysics.” In Science in Flux, 208–39. Dordrecht: Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, Joseph. 1975c. “Questions of Science and Metaphysics.” In Science in Flux, 240–69. Dordrecht: Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, Joseph. 1975d. “The Confusion between Physics and Metaphysics in the Standard Histories of Science.” In Science in Flux, 270–81. Dordrecht: Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babbie, Earl, and Benaquisto, Lucia. 2002. Fundamentals of Social Research, First Canadian Edition. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1995. “Ceteris Paribus Laws and Socio-Economic Machines.” The Monist 78: 276–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, James M., and Hyde, Mark. 2003. Doing Empirical Political Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Davis, Murray S. 1971. “That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 1 (4): 309–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Balso, Michael, and Lewis, Alan D.. 2001. First Steps: A Guide to Social Research. Second Edition. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Hattiangadi, J.N. 1978. “The Structure of Problems (Part I).” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 8: 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvie, Ian. 2003. “Fuller on Kuhn.” Social Epistemology 17 (2-3): 187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Laurence F., and Olson, Edward C.. 1996. “The Problem: Essence of the Research Project.” In Political Science Research: A Handbook of Scope and Methods, Chapter 2, 22–29. Longman.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, Eugene J. 1978. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. 1996. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Winkler, Kenneth P. pp. 33–36. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Manheim, Jarol B., Rich, Richard C., and Willnat, Lars. 2002. Empirical Analysis: Research Methods in Political Science, 5th ed. New York: Addison, Wesley, Longman.Google Scholar
Mende, Jens. 2005. “The Poverty of Empiricism.” Informing Science Journal 8: 189–210.Google Scholar
Michels, Roberto. 1911. Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie; Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens. Leipzig: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
Neuman, W. Lawrence, and Robson, Karen. 2007. Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Toronto: Pearson.Google Scholar
Ogden, Charles K., and Richards, Ivor Armstrong. 1923. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. 1967. The Tacit Dimension, 1–26. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1965. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1976. “The Logic of the Social Sciences.” In The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1982. A Metaphysical Epilogue: Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1995. “Against Big Words (a letter not originally intended for publication).” In In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quinton, Anthony. 1980. Francis Bacon. Oxford: University PressGoogle Scholar
Reason, Peter (ed.). 1988. Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New Paradigm Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Selltiz, Claire, Wrightsman, Lawrence S., and Cook, Stuart W.. 1976. Research Methods in Social Relations, 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. 2002. The Craft of Political Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Thomas J. 2001. Methods of Social Research. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Wartofsky, Marx. 1976. “How to Begin Again: Medical Therapies for the Philosophy of Science.” In PSA 1976: Proceedings of the 1976 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 2, eds. Suppe, Frederick & Asquith, Peter, 109–22. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Wisdom, J.O. 1980. “Schemata in Social Science. Part I: Structural and Operational.” Inquiry 23: 445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar