Doing Social Science

| Peter Boettke |

The past few days have been spent at a conference honoring the contributions of Peter L. Berger to the social sciences.  The conference was sponsored by the Fund for the Study of Spontaneous Orders, and brought together scholars from sociology, religious studies, management, economics, and history.  Bill Dennis organized the conference, and Steve Horwitz served as the discussion leader.

I will post about some of the issues of substance, and in particular the 4 empirical challenges that Berger raised to the social sciences.   But as I listened to the discussion, I kept thinking to myself "What makes a good social scientist?'  Peter Berger is a great social scientist, and as with all matters touching on "greatness" there are tangible and replicable attributes, but other intangible and unique attributes to the individual.  So I am not asking about "greatness", but just talking about being "good".

I think that there are two characteristics of those who do good social science.  First, they have to possess the ability to think in the alternative frameworks.  The principle of charity is often invoked in philosophical discussions on how to assess the arguments of others.  The social sciences are full of competing frameworks of analysis.  The working social scientist adopt a framework, but in researching and exchanging ideas with other social scientist, our working social scientist must learn to "think" in terms of the frameworks of others, and to appreciate the research agenda and perspective of others to be able to offer compelling criticisms of that work and improve the weaknesses in one's own work.

Second, the social scientist in doing their work must be able to intellectual slide between alternative institutional environments, and analytically assess the situations.  This is an exercise, I would argue, in rational choice comparative historical analysis.

There are, of course, many other characteristics of the social scientist, but I think these two are critical for understanding others across the social scientific disciplines, and for understanding the doings of men in all walks of life across time and place.

Comments

[Brian Pitt]

Professor Boettke,

If I understand you correctly, the working social scientist should (1) adopt an analytical framework (such as e.g., rational choice, network analysis, social constructionism, etc.) and having a working knowledge of alternative analytical frameworks; (2) become conversant with an historical period and finally; (3) apply their framework to different institutions and historical periods.

Sounds like alot of work!

[Term papers]

Agree with the above comment sounds like tough work..!