Interaction within Social Science Research

Physical scientists and strict empiricists, by and large, cannot accept research findings from psychotherapies, action research or field studies. These research styles are all far too uncontrolled, far too subject to conscious and unconscious biases, and far too qualitative. Measurement is frequently noticeable by its absence.

In return, those who work, or rather give of themselves, to better society and help people, view hard science as an opt out. They utterly reject the notion of a «value-free social science», and deplore the fetish for control and measurement.

Ideologists are uncomfortable with or reject frameworks that claim to be value-neutral or uncommitted. It does not feel right to have their precious perspective placed as just one amongst a set of necessarily valid perspectives. Creative questioning of any deeply held ideology is disturbing.

Framework creators, for their part, dislike bias, extreme positions and aggressive attitudes. They also fear the harm and unfairness that may flow from constantly applying just one perspective and ruthlessly rejecting others.

Awareness of what works and makes sense for reflective practitioners is needed by any objectivist inquirer. Consulting was the initial source of ideas that led to developing THEE. In the same way, experiences of psychotherapy produced psychoanalytic theories. Taxonomic inquiry then found that several psychoanalytic theories have a place in a Typology alongside other non-dynamic theories of mental stabilization.

THEE's Frameworks (as well as other developed theories) can assist community workers, management consultants, therapists, and advisors to understand their own interventions. The result could be a more appropriate, more ethical and more effective intervention strategy. Such engagement helps Frameworks become refined (i.e. corrected, improved) and validated (or rejected).

THEE's Frameworks have informed objective scientific inquiries by providing guidance as to worthwhile hypotheses and relevant issues that need control to avoid confusing outcomes. Much more is possible in this arena. The opportunities are quite exciting.

Solid scientific findings should be able to throw light on certain fundamentals. These would need to be taken into account in the development and application of THEE Frameworks. Empirical science might also help with issues of comprehensiveness, universality and precision in naming and formulating.

Many critical theorists want to change society or groups or relationships within society in accord with what they discover from their analyses. Marxist analyses are the best known. However, the US government funds groups to analyse economic and social situations from a liberal capitalist perspective. The notion behind all such efforts is always to affect society for its own «good» i.e. according to the initial bias.

Participants in community development and helpers for alienated groups in society often feel frustrated at their inability to generate development (as they see it). Some then look for contextual factors in the culture or society so as to analyse the situation from their preferred ideology or perspective. Bias is again in-built.

Interpretive analyses may pick and choose from empirical findings to suit their bias. Alternatively their analyses offer an exposé of hidden influences (e.g. source of funds) or an exegesis of studies to reveal ignored ideological assumptions. The aim here is typically to show that, unlike physical science, there is no such thing as «neutrality» in social science.

Objective empirical research tends to regard ideologies as «unfalsifiable and untestable» and so turns away. Such scientists miss the point that an ideology is not your usual theory, but an ethical entity that absolutely requires to be upheld with conviction. Belief is not an option. (Of course, scientists believe in science.) Occasionally conventional research is conducted from within an ideological paradigm—see more in the Arenas of Association PH'5Q).