What Are the Strengths and Limitations in the Creation of Knowledge within the Social Sciences - Coursework Example

What are the strengths and limitations in the creation of knowledge within the social sciences? Name: Subject & Code: Instructor: Date: Introduction Social Sciences are a study of our own selves as well as the phenomena that affect the lives of the human beings in various ways especially during their interaction with one another or with the nature. The creation of knowledge with the social studies is beneficial to persons domestically, regionally, nationally, as well as internationally. Through social sciences, communities, households as well as individuals benefit from the knowledge on the economic development (Smith, 1998). However, the knowledge on social sciences is essentially a double-edged sword that cuts from both sides. Where the social sciences yield improved policies for the economic systems management, they are said to be their positive implication. The policy makers rely on the knowledge to determine the economic development margins as well as the inflation level in the economy (Smith, 1998). Knowledge on the two economic sectors facilitates the development of strong policies favoring the society. On the other hand, the social sciences may also impact negatively on the economy, where the policies formulated are poor and vague as well as the added cost of production accrued in the knowledge creation (Smith, 1998). Being a multidisciplinary study, the strengths and weaknesses of social science research can be viewed in the perspectives of the various concepts. This paper therefore, aims at examining these strengths and weaknesses in terms of theory of dependence, paradigms, probabilism, as well as peer review. Theory dependence The late 1950s saw the development of the dependency theory under the canons of Raul Prebisch. Despite the interrelations between the well developed and the developing countries, the economic development in the industrialized and rich countries did not result to the consequential development of other developing countries. In fact, Prebisch and his contemporaries argue that the richer the developed countries became, resulted to economic crisis of the poor countries. Hence, the development of the ideology of the rich continually grew richer while the poor became poorer. The theory emphasizes that the underdeveloped countries were the source of resources at their peripheral and the industrialized states would acquire them at their core and hence enrichment of the developed ones with the exploitation of the former (Matunhu, 2011). The dependence theory emphasizes on the relationship between the countries of different economic status. The dominant countries are depended on by the dependent ones for their manufactured resources, yet the dependents are ideally the sources of the raw materials. This interaction clearly results to more detrimental effects on the underdeveloped countries and hence widening the economic inequality gap. The theory has been argued in the various theorists perspectives. In his critique of capitalism, Marxist view dependency theory to be due to the capitalists (Matunhu, 2011). The knowledge on social sciences has perpetrated the inequality distribution of economic resources, on a global scope. The capitalism has perpetrated the dominance of the developed countries over the developing countries due to the poor resourcing of the underdeveloped countries. On a different perspective, structuralisms blame the economic situation of the poor countries to be the reason of their dependence on the developed ones. However, other theorists feel that capitalism is essentially not the perpetrator of the inequality in the society (Matunhu, 2011). These theorists feel that the power of the dominant is out of power and influence and not necessarily due to their economic advancement. The power affiliation gives a stand in the inequality between the two societies. According to the theory of dependency, the knowledge of social sciences gives an economic development understanding, which hence is utilized by the capitalists to exploit over the dependent countries. With the information of how the rich countries developed is actually rendered useless to the development of the currently developing states due to the difference in the time and economic factors (Matunhu, 2011). Additionally, the social sciences are at times important in the fact that they encourage the developing countries to be self-reliant in order to develop themselves without being exploited by the already developed countries. Paradigms Social sciences and theories are described in the various dimensions, in terms of modern or classical, progressive or conservative among others. Social theories however, has less regards for mathematical and the analytical aspect of the researches. Paradigms in sociology are responsible for the qualitative aspect of the social lives of people. Giving a qualitative analysis, the paradigm is viewed to hold the functions of concept definition, reduction of the hidden assumptions in sociology, cumulating hypothetical elucidations, systematization of concepts, as well as codification of the qualitative analysis (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). The sociological paradigm is essentially responsible for the development of knowledge in the sense that the analysis of sociological data gives more details and information. Drawing conclusions and inferences essentially builds up the knowledge progressively. The ideology of paradigms essentially gives details and additional information about a hypothesis or a question hence the individual is able to analyse it on a deeper level (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Through sociological paradigm, the theorists and sociologists are equipped with the alternative solutions to a similar problem. The social sciences in that regard are held responsible for the society able to solve their problems through critical thinking due to the progressive information from the paradigms in the field. The social sciences hence elevate the thinking of the learners and hence the creation of knowledge becomes progressive with new inventions, interpretations and conclusions from different persons hence the expansion of knowledge (Hafner, 1998). The social sciences moreover, are said to liberate the thinking of an individual and hence the persons are given a free will to their action. The liberty to act one feels essentially initiates the societal crimes and problems. The paradigm in sociology is thereby seen to propel crimes due to the free will (Hafner, 1998). The rational beings that people are, they hence tend to use all means possible as long as they achieve their targeted goals. The means of getting the end is essentially predetermined to follow the rule of pleasure and pain in the society. People having the different personalities and perspectives, pain and pleasure have different meanings and hence the perpetration of crimes (Hafner, 1998). This hence calls for punitive consequences, which deters the economic advancement. The knowledge on the paradigms is can therefore cause societal problems as a result. Probabilism In the society, people have different believes and values despite being coded by similar pattern of behaviors, believes and values. The credence of an individual is governed by the degree of what a person thinks or believes in as opposed to is consequences. Due to the uncertainties in the society, probabilism seems to work and hence it is said to be the best criteria of conclusion (Baillie, 1973). Even if people believe in the same thing, one will tend to believe more than the other hence the credence is accrued as stronger. The social sciences as explained in the theory of probabilism provide the different information in the society about the lives of people but different persons view it differently hence having different effects on the two parties. The creation of knowledge is founded on the credence of a person since a strong belief of a person translates to the reality especially where the situation is abstract and uncertain. The beliefs therefore, are a source of knowledge since the ones with stronger believes tend to suppress the ones with a lesser degree of believe in the same field (H´ajek, 2008). In this regards, rational individuals look at the degree at which a possibility can be justified. The degree at which it can be justified hence results to adoption or rejection. The limitations of knowledge creation in regards to probabilism are essentially based on the calibration argument of the ideology. Probabilism governs that the goals are not justified by the calibrations hence the disutility cannot be justified by the individual credence (Joyce, 1998). The theory is governed by the moral grounds of a probability. Mainly people tend to follow what which is right to them. Due to lack of codes of conduct, probabilism stands to be followed in the definition of the right or wrong (Baillie, 1973). Apparently, mainly people consider the way out as their probability. This aspect of social sciences holds that the moral system of the society may do well even without the law abides. Individuals tend to know their degree of probabilism hence doing right in the society is a possibility (H´ajek, 2008). Through probabilism, the individuals tend to come up with common guidelines of life, which are unwritten but coded and generalized to be followed. In the social sciences research, the probabilism provides adequate moral information concerning the societal system defining the lawfulness and the unlawfulness of the society. Peer Review The social sciences research affects the various aspects of the society that is the firm, households as well as government agencies. Peer review denotes the scrutiny that a research or a proposal and presentations undertaken to critically evaluate and analyse the information (Research Information Network, 2010). Peer review is focused on improving the researches, proposals articles among other writings. The peer reviews are exclusively done by the experts and highly experienced gurus in the field. In that regards the research or the writing is recommended and criticized where necessary improving the quality of the writing by giving it the right guidance (Taylor & Francis Group, 2015). In social sciences, creation of knowledge is thereby advantaged in the sense that the philosophies, the significance, validity and originality of the theories and work in general is normally scrutinized and judged by the review system (Research Information Network, 2010). The reviews are a strength bearing in mind that quality work is encouraged when the work is peer reviewed before publication. The reviewed work is normally viewed as more reliable and quality than a paper, which has not been reviewed. Therefore the public trusts the work more and in that regard, facilitating knowledge creation for the scientists as well as the whole public. Generally, the previously done work is protected from plagiarism among others through the peer reviewing (Taylor & Francis Group, 2015). Peer reviewing thereby facilitate knowledge creation among the scientists and it fosters greater strengths despite having some few weaknesses, such as failure to correct work when the system is faulty or not well set-up. However, peer review limits knowledge creation in the sense that it at times changes the content and the intended meaning of the writing during correction of the paper. Additionally, the process is tedious and hence may result to delays, which might end up discouraging writers. The research community has been growing over the years hence the limited reviewers face difficulties hence complexities in the process, which is huge challenge in the process of knowledge creation. The reviewing of the articles may discourage first time writers and philosophers in the sense that they fear critics by the experts in the field. Conclusion In conclusion, the social sciences have a wide advantage in the society in the sense that they give a platform for scientists and the whole publics to create and gain knowledge in the various fields. The process is essentially strengthened and at times limited by the effects of peer reviewing, dependency theory, paradigms as well as probabilism. The four concepts in social sciences have shown great effect on the process of knowledge creation in the sense that they give referents to the process and hence scientists, writers, philosophers, theorists as well as the general publics are encouraged to give their thoughts about certain ideas or phenomenon in the society the lives of the people, social sciences are inevitable and hence a critical part of the society that has over the years facilitated the moral perception and healthy relationships among people. References Baillie, P 1973, Confirmation and the Dutch Book Argument’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 24, pp. 393–7. Burrell, G. & Morgan, G 1979, Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Lite. Retrieved from: http://sonify.psych.gatech.edu/~ben/references/burrell_sociological_paradigms_and_orga nisational_analysis.pdf H´ajek, A 2008, Arguments for–or against–Probabilism? Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 59, 793–819. Hafner, P 1998, Theories and Paradigms in Sociology. The Scientific Journal Facta Universitatis, Series: Philosophy and Sociology, 1 (5), pp. 455 – 464. Joyce, J. M 1998, ‘A Non-Pragmatic Vindication of Probabilism’, Philosophy of Science, 65, pp. 575–603. Matunhu, J 2011, A Critique of Modernization and Dependency Theories in Africa. Critical Assessment. African Journal of History and Culture, 3(5), pp. 65-72. Smith, V. H. 1998. Measuring the Benefits of Social Science Research, Impact Assessment Discussion Paper No. 2. Research Information Network 2010. Paper Review: A guide for researchers. Retrieved from: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Peer-review-guide-screen.pdf Taylor & Francis Group 2015, Peer review in 2015: A global view. Retrieved from: http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Peer-Review- 2015-white-paper.pdf Read More

Paradigms Social sciences and theories are described in the various dimensions, in terms of modern or classical, progressive or conservative among others. Social theories however, has less regards for mathematical and the analytical aspect of the researches. Paradigms in sociology are responsible for the qualitative aspect of the social lives of people. Giving a qualitative analysis, the paradigm is viewed to hold the functions of concept definition, reduction of the hidden assumptions in sociology, cumulating hypothetical elucidations, systematization of concepts, as well as codification of the qualitative analysis (Burrell & Morgan, 1979).

The sociological paradigm is essentially responsible for the development of knowledge in the sense that the analysis of sociological data gives more details and information. Drawing conclusions and inferences essentially builds up the knowledge progressively. The ideology of paradigms essentially gives details and additional information about a hypothesis or a question hence the individual is able to analyse it on a deeper level (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Through sociological paradigm, the theorists and sociologists are equipped with the alternative solutions to a similar problem.

The social sciences in that regard are held responsible for the society able to solve their problems through critical thinking due to the progressive information from the paradigms in the field. The social sciences hence elevate the thinking of the learners and hence the creation of knowledge becomes progressive with new inventions, interpretations and conclusions from different persons hence the expansion of knowledge (Hafner, 1998). The social sciences moreover, are said to liberate the thinking of an individual and hence the persons are given a free will to their action.

The liberty to act one feels essentially initiates the societal crimes and problems. The paradigm in sociology is thereby seen to propel crimes due to the free will (Hafner, 1998). The rational beings that people are, they hence tend to use all means possible as long as they achieve their targeted goals. The means of getting the end is essentially predetermined to follow the rule of pleasure and pain in the society. People having the different personalities and perspectives, pain and pleasure have different meanings and hence the perpetration of crimes (Hafner, 1998).

This hence calls for punitive consequences, which deters the economic advancement. The knowledge on the paradigms is can therefore cause societal problems as a result. Probabilism In the society, people have different believes and values despite being coded by similar pattern of behaviors, believes and values. The credence of an individual is governed by the degree of what a person thinks or believes in as opposed to is consequences. Due to the uncertainties in the society, probabilism seems to work and hence it is said to be the best criteria of conclusion (Baillie, 1973).

Even if people believe in the same thing, one will tend to believe more than the other hence the credence is accrued as stronger. The social sciences as explained in the theory of probabilism provide the different information in the society about the lives of people but different persons view it differently hence having different effects on the two parties. The creation of knowledge is founded on the credence of a person since a strong belief of a person translates to the reality especially where the situation is abstract and uncertain.

The beliefs therefore, are a source of knowledge since the ones with stronger believes tend to suppress the ones with a lesser degree of believe in the same field (H´ajek, 2008). In this regards, rational individuals look at the degree at which a possibility can be justified. The degree at which it can be justified hence results to adoption or rejection. The limitations of knowledge creation in regards to probabilism are essentially based on the calibration argument of the ideology.

Read More