Chapter 19 How to Read Social Science
Social science is such a broad field, and the concepts and terminology of the social sciences are found in much of what we read. It is also fitting, as we see below, that social science is the final area of reading as we transition into the topic of Syntopical reading.
What fields and departments typically constitute the core of social science? Discuss why professional schools like law, education, as well as psychology and history are typically not considered social sciences? (p. 290 – 292)
The core of social science typically includes anthropology, economics, politics, and sociology. Professional schools like law, education, business, social service, and public administration are separated from social science divisions because their main purpose is to train for professional work outside of the university, while the core departments are more exclusively dedicated to the pursuit of systematic knowledge of human society, an activity that usually goes on within the university.
Regarding psychology, there’s debate: strict social scientists exclude it because it concerns itself with individual and personal characteristics, while social sciences proper focus on cultural, institutional, and environmental factors. However, less strict definitions would include psychology (both normal and abnormal) as a social science, given the inseparability of the individual from their social environment. Physiological psychology, however, should be subsumed under the biological sciences.
History is not considered a social science because, although it may be scientific in the minimal sense of constituting systematic knowledge, it is not a science in the sense that it yields systematic knowledge of patterns or laws of behavior and development. Social sciences draw on history for data and exemplifications of their generalizations, but history itself consists of accounts of particular events and persons.
Why does social science writing often seem easier to read than other types of expository writing? What factors contribute to this apparent ease? (p. 292 – 293)
Social science writing seems easier to read for several reasons:
Familiar data: The data are often drawn from experiences familiar to the reader – similar to poetry or philosophy, social science deals with the world as we commonly know it.
Familiar style: The style of exposition is usually narrative, which readers are already familiar with through reading fiction and history.
Common jargon: We have all become familiar with social science jargon and use it often in everyday conversation. Terms like culture, in-group, alienation, status, input/output, ethnic, behavioral, consensus, and many others appear in almost every conversation and in almost everything we read.
Familiar concepts: Words like “society” and “social” are chameleon-like words with many familiar meanings that we encounter regularly.
The jargon, metaphors, and deep feeling that imbues much social science writing make for deceptively easy reading. The references are to matters that are readily familiar to the reader.
The same factors that make social science seem easy to read also make it difficult. Explain how the reader’s commitment to particular views creates obstacles to understanding. (p. 294)
The commitment that readers have to particular views creates significant obstacles to understanding. Unlike philosophy, where we are not ordinarily “committed” on philosophical questions, on matters with which social science deals, we are likely to have strong opinions. Our attitudes and feelings regarding social science topics are usually firmly developed because we read or hear about them almost daily.
Many readers fear that it would be disloyal to their commitment to stand apart and impersonally question what they are reading. Yet this analytical stance is necessary for true understanding. The rules of reading, particularly the rules of structural outlining and interpretation, require readers to check their opinions at the door. You cannot understand a book if you refuse to hear what it is saying.
Additionally, the very familiarity of the terms and propositions in social science writing is an obstacle to understanding. When reporters and columnists use technical concepts too widely without really understanding what they mean, confusion follows. If the writer is confused about the use of a key term, the reader must be confused as well.
How does the use of technical terms in social science differ from their use in the “hard sciences” like physics and chemistry? What is meant by “stipulation of usage,” and why is it more difficult in social science? (p. 294 – 295)
In the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), authors “stipulate their usage” – that is, they inform readers what terms are essential to their argument and how they’re going to use them. Such stipulations usually occur at the beginning of the book in the form of definitions, postulates, axioms, and so forth. The hard sciences are said to have a “game structure” because stipulation of usage is like establishing the rules of a game – you accept the rules and go on from there. You do not dispute a hard scientist’s stipulations when reading their book; much of the work of coming to terms and finding propositions is done for you.
Stipulation of usage was not as common in social sciences (at least until recently) for two main reasons: social sciences were typically not mathematicized, and stipulation of usage in the social or behavioral sciences is harder to do. It’s one thing to define a circle or an isosceles triangle; it’s quite another to define an economic depression or mental health
Even when a social scientist attempts to define such terms, readers are inclined to question the usage. As a result, the social scientist must continue to struggle with their own terms throughout the work, and this struggle creates problems for the reader.
Why do the authors use the phrase “social science literature” rather than “social science book”? What is the significance of this distinction? (p. 297)
The authors use “social science literature” instead of “social science book” because it is customary in social science to read several books about a subject rather than one book for its own sake. This is significant for several reasons.
When reading social science, we often have our eye primarily on a particular matter or problem, rather than on a particular author or book. We might be interested in law enforcement, race relations, education, taxation, or problems of local government, and we read half a dozen works on the subject.
There is typically no single, authoritative work on most social science subjects, so readers must therefore read several books.
Social science authors themselves must constantly bring out new, revised editions of their works to keep up with the times, and new works supersede older ones and rapidly render them obsolete.
This distinguishes social science from other fields where finding one major, authoritative work is more common.
It is customary in social science to read several books about a subject rather than one book. How does this differ from reading in philosophy, history, or other fields? (p. 297)
For Philosophy: To some extent, you should read the philosophers your author has read to fully understand them, but the likelihood of finding one major, authoritative work is much greater than in social science.
For History: If you want to discover the truth of the past, you it is better read several books about it rather than one. However, again, finding one major, authoritative work is more common than in social science.
In social science, the necessity of reading several works rather than one is much more urgent because single, authoritative works are not common. Social science works rapidly become obsolete as the field evolves.
How do the rules of analytical reading apply to social science, and why do the authors suggest that a fourth level of reading (syntopical reading) is necessary? (p. 297 – 298)
The rules of analytical reading still apply to each individual work that is read in social science.
However, since it is the characteristic of social science that no single authoritative work typically exists on a given subject, making the reading of several works on the same subject necessary, new rules of reading are required since they are not in themselves applicable to the reading of several works on the same subject.
Since reading several works about a subject rather than one book is characteristic of social science, we need rules that govern how to read multiple works together. This leads us into the fourth level of reading – syntopical reading
** Note – assume much of the content following each discussion question is a paraphrase and comes from the book How to Read a Book.
Click here to print Chapter 19 Discussion Questions.
Michelle Home Scholar 