August 16, 2012

What's Soft about Social Science?

ksternheimerBy Karen Sternheimer

Social science is sometimes called “soft science” compared with physical, or “hard science.” You’ll rarely hear a social scientist use this distinction, though.

Why don’t we like it? Just as it sounds, “soft science” suggests that the social sciences aren’t really sciences. As psychologist Timothy D. Wilson wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed:clip_image002

There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the "hard" ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the "soft" ones (psychology, sociology). It is thus no surprise that many members of the general public feel the same way. But of late, skepticism about the rigors of social science has reached absurd heights.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to eliminate funding for political science research through the National Science Foundation. In the wake of that action, an opinion writer for the Washington Post suggested that the House didn't go far enough. The NSF should not fund any research in the social sciences, wrote Charles Lane, because "unlike hypotheses in the hard sciences, hypotheses about society usually can't be proven or disproven by experimentation."

As Wilson describes, the social sciences use rigorous empirical research to test hypotheses, and we do use experimentation in some cases. And like physical sciences, the social sciences have made important discoveries about human behavior that have eased human suffering and provided important insights into both individuals and groups. As I have previously blogged about, the public hears lots of stories about social science research that seems trivial or obvious, leading some people to support cuts to funding for research.

But then an event happens, like the horrific massacre at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and we all want to know what would drive someone to shoot and kill so many people. This is one example—albeit an extreme one—of why we need social science.

While the general public might have theories about why the Aurora shooter did what he did, which sometimes offer only simple answers, social scientists can study different hypotheses to empirically assess how accurate they really are. We can examine issues such as mental health, the importance of social isolation, the role of gun availability, family background, and self-image to see how important—if at all—these factors may be.

That said, it is extremely difficult to predict any one individual’s behavior or response to their circumstances, and it’s especially difficult to predict an event as uncommon as a rampage shooting. We do better at predicting larger patterns of behavior over the long run.

If anything, the task of understanding human behavior is more difficult than understanding the natural world around us. We have personalities, free will, and we are shaped by those around us in ways that are very difficult to understand. Quite literally, social science is a hard science in that it is very challenging to comprehend people’s thoughts and actions.

This is not to diminish the physical sciences in anyway; in fact it is an artificial distinction in many ways since there are overlaps between them. Human interaction shapes our physical health and medical conditions. Our geography and physical environment also affects our interactions with one another as well as our individual behavior, and we are impacted by our environment in ways shaped by our social circumstances. As sociologist Eric Klinenberg discusses in his research on heat waves, it’s not simply the ambient temperature that takes its toll on people; income, age, and limited social contacts helped predict who died during a 1995 heat wave in Chicago.

We can also understand the interactions between people and the natural world through social science. Many developing nations are facing severe food shortages and massive population booms that threaten to produce staggering levels of poverty. Demographers who study fertility patterns can help with population control in these nations; political scientists and sociologists can help us understand the role that power and politics play in food distribution channels, particularly in nations that existed as colonies for centuries before becoming independent.

Limiting or ignoring social science research would be detrimental for any society. Through rigorous methods, we answer the questions many people have about how humans behave and interact.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83534ac5b69e2016768d411d3970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's Soft about Social Science?:

Comments

Social Science should be respected just as much as the other sciences. Although they differ in many ways, they work hand in hand in many ways as well. Understanding human nature and the world around us is alot more important than some would imagine.

I wonder if the recent action taken by the U.S. House of Representatives can really be considered to demonstrate widespread skepticism about the social sciences. Considering that the U.S. public's approval rating of Congress is at an all-time low, the actions of the House do not necessarily reflect anything like "public opinion." It may in fact be that attacks on the social sciences are motivated by political concerns rather than concern over their degree of rigorousness. We might even go so far as to say that such attacks confirm rather than deny the effectiveness of the knowledge produced by the social sciences. It's also worth mentioning that the so-called "hard sciences" are not removed from politics. If the House voted to cut funding for climate science, for example, would we say their action reflected a growing distrust of the hard sciences?

Auguste Comte stated that sociology needed to be treated like any other scientific discipline. We live in a world of structured functionalism. Everything works together even if we disagree on the smaller things.

What's Soft about Social Science?

I never realized that were such controversy over the different sciences. I don't necessarily believe that there should be a "soft" or "hard" science. I do understand the terminology, however, the study of any one aspect of our world is just as important as the next. When Charles Lane wrote; "unlike hypotheses in the hard sciences, hypotheses about society usually can't be proven or disproven by experimentation.", proposing that he agreed with the removal of funding to social science education, I feel that this was a very uneducated and close minded thing to say. The very reason that a definite hypothesis can sometimes not be reached in an experiment in social sciences is because of the widely different aspects of the experiment itself. There are countless numbers of experiments to perform on countless number of people throughout the world. It would be near impossible to reach one certain hypothesis when using such a wide range of variables. I believe that the study of something so diverse and wide spread is something that society needs to keep an open mind and learn more about the world we live in outside of the technical way in which it works.

Social science plays an important role in our societys. Social sciene is how we live and interact on a daily basis. This form should have funding just as any other science does in school. When we realize the importance of interacting with others it can help us live better in society.

This seems ridiculous! What will they cut funding to next: archaelogy?

I don't have any knowledge that Social science is sometimes called “soft science” compared with physical or “hard science.Although I like this subject very much..It is quite interesting and good..

I don't think psychology is 'soft')) I've spent 4 years studying it at college and I can'say I know people psyche good enough

understand the role that power and politics play in food distribution channels, particularly in nations that existed as colonies for centuries before becoming independent.

Science is science; hard or soft science it is.Social science plays a big role in the society.Without it we wouldn't have any knowledge in psychology or social science per se. I think they should reconsider limiting the research and the funding in this particular field of science.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Become a Fan

The Society Pages Community Blogs

Interested in Submitting a Guest Post?

If you're a sociology instructor or student and would like us to consider your guest post for everydaysociologyblog.com please .

Norton Sociology Books

You May Ask Yourself

Learn More

Essentials of Sociology

Learn More

The Real World

Learn More

Social Problems

Learn More

The Contexts Reader

Learn More

« Gender and the Olympics | Main | Crawling in the Shoes of Others »