Concepts and Reasoning: a Conceptual Review and Analysis of Logical Issues in Empirical Social Science Research.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-08 DOI:10.1007/s12124-023-09792-x
Qingjiang Yao
{"title":"Concepts and Reasoning: a Conceptual Review and Analysis of Logical Issues in Empirical Social Science Research.","authors":"Qingjiang Yao","doi":"10.1007/s12124-023-09792-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A substantial number of social science studies have shown a lack of conceptual clarity, inadequate understanding of the nature of the empirical research approaches, and undue preference for deduction, which have caused much confusion, created paradigmatic incommensurability, and impeded scientific advancement. This study, through conceptual review and analysis of canonical discussions of concepts and the reasoning approaches of deduction and induction and their applications in social science theorization by philosophers and social scientists, is purported to unveil the logical nature of empirical research and examine the legitimacy of the preference of deduction among social scientists. The findings note that conceptual clarity as the foundation of social science research, exchange, and replication can be achieved through interdisciplinary stress of conceptual analyses to establish universal measurements and that the primacy of deduction in social sciences needs to concede to or be balanced with induction for new knowledge, more discoveries, and scientific advancement. The study recommends that institutions and researchers of social sciences invest more in conceptual analysis and inductive research through collaboration and separate efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":50356,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science","volume":" ","pages":"502-530"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09792-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A substantial number of social science studies have shown a lack of conceptual clarity, inadequate understanding of the nature of the empirical research approaches, and undue preference for deduction, which have caused much confusion, created paradigmatic incommensurability, and impeded scientific advancement. This study, through conceptual review and analysis of canonical discussions of concepts and the reasoning approaches of deduction and induction and their applications in social science theorization by philosophers and social scientists, is purported to unveil the logical nature of empirical research and examine the legitimacy of the preference of deduction among social scientists. The findings note that conceptual clarity as the foundation of social science research, exchange, and replication can be achieved through interdisciplinary stress of conceptual analyses to establish universal measurements and that the primacy of deduction in social sciences needs to concede to or be balanced with induction for new knowledge, more discoveries, and scientific advancement. The study recommends that institutions and researchers of social sciences invest more in conceptual analysis and inductive research through collaboration and separate efforts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
概念与推理:社会科学实证研究中逻辑问题的概念回顾与分析》。
大量的社会科学研究表明,概念不清晰、对经验研究方法的本质认识不足以及对演绎法的过度偏好,造成了许多混乱,造成了范式上的不可通约性,阻碍了科学的进步。本研究通过对哲学家和社会科学家关于概念和演绎、归纳等推理方法的经典论述及其在社会科学理论化中的应用进行概念梳理和分析,旨在揭示实证研究的逻辑本质,考察社会科学家偏好演绎的合理性。研究结果指出,概念的清晰性是社会科学研究、交流和复制的基础,可以通过跨学科的概念分析来实现,以建立普遍的衡量标准,社会科学中演绎的首要地位需要让位于归纳,或与归纳相平衡,以获得新的知识、更多的发现和科学进步。研究建议社会科学机构和研究人员通过合作和单独努力,加大对概念分析和归纳研究的投入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: IPBS: Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science is an international interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the advancement of basic knowledge in the social and behavioral sciences. IPBS covers such topics as cultural nature of human conduct and its evolutionary history, anthropology, ethology, communication processes between people, and within-- as well as between-- societies. A special focus will be given to integration of perspectives of the social and biological sciences through theoretical models of epigenesis. It contains articles pertaining to theoretical integration of ideas, epistemology of social and biological sciences, and original empirical research articles of general scientific value. History of the social sciences is covered by IPBS in cases relevant for further development of theoretical perspectives and empirical elaborations within the social and biological sciences. IPBS has the goal of integrating knowledge from different areas into a new synthesis of universal social science—overcoming the post-modernist fragmentation of ideas of recent decades.
期刊最新文献
Instant Futures: an experimental study of the imagination of alternative near futures thanks to science fiction. Beyond the Narrowness of Disciplinary Borders: Biology and the Unconscious in Ferenczi's Thalassa-Primordial Phylogenetic Trauma and its Recapitulation in Ontogenesis. Exploring AI-Driven Feedback as a Cultural Tool: A Cultural-Historical Perspective on Design of AI Environments to Support Students' Writing Process. Goals as Motives: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice. Multiple Lurias. Reconstructing Alexander Romanovich's Life-Writing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1