Summary
This article explains the distinction between methods and methodology since the challenges of scientific research requires that they are understood as useful tools to allow understanding and argumentation of the different study problems. The lack of distinction between the two concepts as a starting point in the teaching of social sciences causes equivocal visions that translate into confusion or insufficiency when reflecting on their content and application. It is also explained that the knowledge of the social sciences is not conclusive, but rather part of challenges to validate its validity.
Introduction
If scientific knowledge is an unfinished process and, therefore, is subject to constant review and production, the usefulness of the methods and methodology must be reviewed regularly, in order to validate their effectiveness. The challenges of scientific research demand that both methods and methodology be understood and assumed as useful tools that allow the approach, understanding, and argumentation of study problems.
Therefore, it is essential to deepen its distinction to locate its meaning and foundation. In this sense, the objective of the present work is to contribute to differentiating the method and the methodology to avoid mistakes that have an unfavorable influence on the teaching-learning process. The lack of distinction between the two concepts as a starting point in the teaching of social sciences causes equivocal visions that translate into confusion or insufficiency when reflecting on their content and application.
A basic rule of scientific research work is the clarity that there must be for each of the instruments used to carry it out based on its importance and complexity. From this perspective, the timely distinction of both concepts pays in favor of more efficient learning. Solving this aspect from the initial formation of university education contributes to more creative and orderly development of what are the premises of scientific research.
For exposition purposes, this article is structured as follows:
1. Foundation of social scientific knowledge
2. Difference between method and methodology
3. Plurality of methods
4. A contemporary vision of research methods, and Conclusion.
1. Foundation of social scientific knowledge
Scientific knowledge is characterized because it requires study, analysis, and explanation of the facts that are defined as problems. It is a type of knowledge that does not admit a priori or hasty evaluations, but rather in its treatment concepts, methodologies and theories must be used to work with reality understood as a problem.
The important thing in scientific knowledge is that its production is the result of inquiries and discoveries that attract the attention of those who investigate. It combines systematized curiosity, as well as specific questions to identify the meaning of phenomena, in terms of their causality, consequences, and impact.
An essential aspect of scientific knowledge is that it responds to social, historical, economic, and political conditions. This implies that there are conditions, processes, and times that locate its usefulness, not only for theoretical purposes, but also for applied. In this case, it is important to highlight that modern scientific knowledge is formed with civil society in the 17th century, 1 a time when the universalization of the relations of a world oriented towards competition, exchange, the constant renewal of the means of production and the intensive use of technology begins.
In this way, the formation and development of scientific knowledge give rise to the formation of normative and applied concepts that are linked to an industrial society, which due to its complexity, demands not only the multiplication of scientific knowledge but also that it be susceptible of being applied to solve the problems of collective life.
This fact defines the scope of scientific knowledge so that it is not understood in an encyclopedic way, but rather is aimed at generating applied utility. Industrial society is the starting point to locate the modern sense of scientific knowledge. Supernatural explanations have no place in the world of modern science, nor do explanations of patristics, less the scholastic foundations.
The secular and secular vision of the world influences its conception, with which it must be understood by reason of its living conditions. This implies that the objective reality category is constructed to work in an explanatory way the events and phenomena that interest those who use methodical reflection to formulate questions, hypotheses, and arguments.
The nature of scientific knowledge is based on the causal explanation of the problems that are defined as the object of study. Working with problems denotes not only interest but also curiosity founded to clarify the meaning of the factors that concur in the advent of problems. Therefore, there is no better way than to think in scientific terms what is defined as a matter of study and analysis.
For this, it is essential to value that scientific knowledge allows problematizing facts, preparing research questions, defining hypotheses, building evidence, and producing arguments. Its conceptual and methodological properties are the product not only of the dialogue of the academic and professional communities but of the production of ideas and explanations that are based on the use of logic and research practice.
Therefore, there are elements to consider that scientific knowledge is the result of complex work based on the development of research, as well as expertise in the use of the tool that allows its production and reproduction. In this case, the attributes of scientific knowledge are given by:
1. Observation, analysis, generation of empirical data, and definition of problems, selecting and highlighting specific realities and evaluating them.
2. It favors problem measurement, experimentation, assumption testing, and evidence building.
3. Use guesses and refutations to find answers to the research questions.
4. It is feasible to define it, separate it, unite it for analysis purposes; furthermore, it is the subject of formulations and reformulations, avoiding dogmatic or conclusive explanations.
5. It favors a reflective understanding of problems, generating their concomitant solutions in the context of specific contexts, starting from generating causal explanations.
6. It gives hypotheses the meaning of potential rebuttals, and the more they resist attempts at rebuttal itself, the more corroborative it will be.
It is important to emphasize that the facts that are defined as problems are part of the evaluative frameworks that those who are interested in the research work. In this sense, scientific knowledge is not the fruit of the "universal spirit", as Federico Hegel would say ( Luhmann, 2009: 12), but of objective conditions of life, in which there are people, communities and organizations interested in working with meaning methodical aspects of objective reality.
Therefore, another facet of scientific knowledge is that it requires working with analogies, inferences, presuppositions, and conclusions, in order to structure logically, both the definition and the foundation of the problems. No less important is to highlight that the definition and solution of problems imply having a specific conception of reality. In this case and from the point of view of scientific knowledge, the problems that are studied and analyzed are human elaborations, they are social constructions that underlie certain particular conceptions of reality. This is why scientific knowledge does not fit with a priori, notions or visual images. It also involves the use of axioms and theorems to make way for reasoning developed for the purpose of prescriptions in some disciplines.
This implies that there are multiple combinations to work with scientific knowledge based on evaluations that allow its social construction, understood as a heuristic resource produced by authors who have motivation and interest to work with some segment of reality. This means that a problem is an artificial construction on certain events or situations that arouse interest to give them conceptual and methodical treatment.
Reality as such does not exist, but from combining evaluations, reasoning, experiences and definitions. Reality is not a given product but requires questions, interpretation and conceptualization in order to give it an explanatory order that allows identifying the central elements of analysis and explanation. Therefore, with the help of scientific knowledge, it is possible to define problems and build concepts using variables, taxonomies, indicators, operational systems and applying procedures to produce, classify and structure relevant data.
A basic aspect in scientific knowledge is the distinction between problematic situations and the cognitive problem. Problematic situations are given by events and facts that are discovered and observed by those who have interest and motivation to define them based on causal relationships.
The cognitive problem is related to the way of evaluating and explaining the meaning of causal relationships based on a theoretical and methodological vision that allows discovering the causal relationships that concur in the trajectory of problems, causes, processes and impacts. that are generated through the volitional relationships of the social, political and economic actors.
2. Difference between method and methodology
If scientific knowledge is the object of production, it implies that there are ways to generate it based on reflection. This implies that a resource to produce knowledge is research methods, understood as tools that make it possible to investigate, clarify and categorize segments of reality that have been defined as problems. Research methods can be valued as a set of ordered procedures that allow us to guide the sharpness of the mind to discover and explain the truth. Their usefulness is that they tend to order to turn a topic into a research problem and to carry out the apprehension of reality.
Methods Simplify the Complexity
In this operation, the method allows complexity to be simplified by selecting the most significant elements of a problem in order to proceed to its conceptual structuring and causal explanation. The importance of the method consists in that it is endowed with cognitive properties that allow the orderly approach of a part of reality and that the utility that it may have in achieving that through the research work, it is possible to clarify what before not known.
Application of Methods Depend on the Subject
The application of the method does not depend on itself, but on the knowing subject, who with his evaluative freedom chooses the object of study to investigate, selects the system of concepts to work and structures the way in which the investigation will be carried out.
The meaning of the method is that the research work is not an activity that is carried out without order and sequence. In any case, all research work is complex because it does not admit that ordinary knowledge or casuistic knowledge are reliable ways to problematize situations and formulate the causal relationship between the various elements of an event.
The method implies a reflective attitude
The application of the method implies a reflective attitude, which allows one way or another to venture into the path of research work. The application of the method responds to the need to organize segments of reality with a logical and explanatory meaning to clarify doubts, questions, and hypotheses.
In this sense, the application of the method responds more to the vision of art inasmuch as it involves expertise to master the system of procedures that support them and that must be applied in the field of theoretical and applied knowledge. If the method is a way to apprehend reality, it, therefore, implies working in a systematic way, in order to that the studied problem is understood in its context, actors, processes, times and consequences.
Thus, investigating, discovering and arguing are activities that are achieved by complying with the use of the method, which implies that the search and production of scientific knowledge is not a matter of obviousness, but that ordered and conceptual reflection is essential to achieve penetration at the core of problems and proceed to their explanation.
A method is feasible to work with normative categories
With the use of the method, it is feasible to work not only with normative categories, but through operational concepts that allow measuring facts, situations o events that have been defined as research problems. Connecting the normative sphere with the empirical sphere, it is possible to achieve it with the use of the method.
The connection between thought and reality is part of the vision of how the method is applied to generate relevant knowledge. With the use of the method, it is feasible to associate the conceptual and the factual elements that allude to the need to work with empirical data.
Use of Methods in Research
In this sense, there are two ways of situating the utility of the method in the generation of scientific knowledge: one is related to theoretical questions that allude to a more abstract and logical orientation, related to working at the level of the foundation and disciplinary structure of a field of study, but without having an empirical approach to reality. This is the case of theories that are characterized by the ordered articulation of universal propositions that have explanatory and predictive value.
Another is related to the production of empirical knowledge that originates not only in a part of reality but also considering the experience of the knowing subject to work with facts or factual situations. In this case, the data that is produced strengthens the normative vision of a study problem and, at the same time, produces evidence through rules and procedures that allow the capture of relevant information that then leads to the construction of arguments. The link between the normative vision and the empirical vision is fundamental in modern scientific knowledge, which indicates that the application of knowledge to attend to and solve problems is part of the achievements that are achieved with the use of the method.
Scientific Methods
The most complete universalization of the method is what is known as the scientific method, which is characterized by:
1. Define problems.
2. Ask research questions.
3. Formulate hypotheses.
4. Analyze and explain the causal relationships of the problems.
5. To define the empirical aspects to be worked on.
However, there is not a single method to do research work, but a plurality of methods that are located in each field of scientific knowledge.
The properties of the scientific method stand out because the other methods have them, but it does not imply that there is only one method for doing theoretical research and applied research.
Properties of Research Methods
Some properties of the method as a research-oriented tool are:
1. Analyze and explain the causal relationships of the problems defined as objects of study.
2. Do interpretation work, which involves evaluating reality understood as problems.
3. Organize the exhibition work, which consists of generating coherence between the explained problem, its thematic order and linking ideas, concepts and arguments to ensure the consistency of the research work.
4. Make thematic, coherent what is disorganized in reality understood as a study problem and
5. Basing the argumentation based on hypotheses and empirical work.
Implications of the Use of Methods in Research
The use of the method also has two implications: one related to the value of the research and the other to the quality of the product obtained. The part of the value is related to the preferences, choice and selection of the aspects that, in the judgment of the knowing subject, have the object of study that is the reason for the research. The quality part refers to the degree of coherence and systematization that the knowing subject achieves with the articulation of normative and empirical elements.
The value part, as well as the quality part, shows that the use of the method also responds to the expertise that the knowing subject has to enter the research work. In this way, a method is a tool that approves to investigate, analyze and produce relevant knowledge that allows filling conceptual gaps, making contributions, refuting theories, testing hypotheses, discovering fallacies, overcoming certain limits of knowledge and advancing along the path of new lines.
What’s Methodology
Regarding methodology, its core area of operation is that it is the logos that guides the logical study of methods, which implies the analysis of the logic that supports them, the sense of their effectiveness, the coverage of their effectiveness, the strength of their approaches and the coherence to produce relevant knowledge.
The methods are historical, cultural, and evaluative and applied products. These elements are the subject of study of the methodology, and it is in charge of analyzing not only its relevance but the quality of its attributes in the effort to produce scientific knowledge.
Importance of Methodology
The importance of the methodology consists in that it relates to study the elements of each method related to its genesis, foundation, ethical articulation, reasonableness; its explanatory capacity, its applied utility, the control procedures it uses, for example, in empirical work and the way in which it is structured to produce results. If the methods have steps, rules and procedures to carry out the intelligent manipulation of reality categorized as a problem, the methodology is directed to its analysis and understanding, in order to verify its strengths and weaknesses.
The methodology depends on the efficiency of Methods
The contribution of the methodology is oriented by entering the efficiency of the methods when they are applied in the research work. This means that the methods are not infallible, but are exposed to advantages and limitations. Finding and supporting these is the task with which the methodology deals. If the procedures characterize the content of the methods, the methodology reviews analyze and verify them to corroborate that they have reliable properties when applied in the research work.
The analysis of the ways to access knowledge is a core point of the methodology when carrying out the properties that each method has. Another way of the understanding methodology is to value it as a scientific discipline that is in charge of reviewing the foundations and effectiveness of the procedures that the methods used for research work.
It should be remembered that research methods define axioms, theorems, laws and calculation rules to guarantee the scientific rigor and effectiveness of their approaches. Both the rigor and the thorough work that the methods must guarantee are an essential part of what the methodology evaluates. It develops philosophical approaches that aim to review the strength of the foundations of each method, as well as the structuring of the elements that define them as reliable and accredited tools to carry out the research work.
The strengths of Methods relate to Methodology
The strength of the methods, for example, in the phases of interpretation and compression of the objects of study, is one of the aspects that the methodology reviews in terms of their analytical rigor and strength. If the methods are not infallible, the methodology contributes to strengthening them with the revision of what they offer as tools that guide to investigate, explain and argue the objects of study.
To the extent that the methods have a greater degree of application, to that extent, it is feasible to know their strength or weakness because they constantly enter the challenges of research, a field in which there are no absolute, 8 or relative truths, but hypotheses that can be constantly formulated and reformulate. It is the academic and professional communities that make recurrent use of research methods, which is why they are the ones that highlight forms of recurrent evaluation when analyzing their effectiveness and scope.
Methods are objects of the Research Methodology
The most challenging test for research methods is how they discover the properties of research problems, contribute new elements of analysis and survive the challenges they face at every moment in their research work. That is why the methods are the object of study of the methodology, which implies a philosophical assessment regarding the rigor they must have and the ability they have to carry out the realistic approach. The rigor of the methods depends on the way in which their content is structured, that is, if they are oriented to describe, analyze, interpret, measure and argue. Each of these facets that are integrated into the methods, is the central subject of the analysis that the methodology carries out to corroborate or not its effectiveness.
Consequently, the task of the methodology is aimed at examining, evaluating, refuting or corroborating the effectiveness of the methods in the various fields of knowledge. If the methods in terms of design and meaning do not comply with their effectiveness, it means that there are errors of design and content regarding their support. In this sense, it implies that they have cognitive and empirical limits, which prevents them from being reliable for research work.
Evaluation of Methodology
The evaluation of the methodology on the methods includes, among other elements:
1. Its theoretical and empirical support.
2. The rigor and quality to generate knowledge.
3. Its degree of coherence or inconsistency.
4. The certainty of its laws, axioms, and theorems.
5. The degree of correspondence in which thought and reality are linked through them, passing from the totality of phenomena to the analysis of the cases that are studied, observed, and analyzed to formulate the arguments that are the final product of the investigation.
6. The way in which they order the experimental, heuristic work and the testing of the hypotheses.
7. How the knowledge produced effectively overcomes the tests and evidence produced in order to support factual knowledge.
3. Plurality of methods
A characteristic of scientific knowledge is that its production does not respond to a single research method, but rather to a plurality of them, which means that there are various options to work on the definition of problems, their approach and justification. In this case, there are no unique procedures for working in the field of scientific research. It is essential that in the secular, secular and plural vision of modern life, the production of knowledge is understood from a perspective that allows the construction and development of knowledge to work with different alternatives. Therefore, it is important to highlight some of the methods that contribute to the fact that the research work can be carried out:
1. Positivism.
2. Critical rationalism.
3. Falsificationism
4. Comparative.
5. Structural.
6. Functionalism.
Positivism
It originates with the advent of industrial society since the late seventeenth century and postulates that facts are the core to carry out research work. Its scope is oriented to the observation and analysis of the facts, their measurable nature and the explanation based on the demonstration of the hypotheses. It is characterized by overcoming the substantial —final causes of the universe— and metaphysical forms of knowledge and by opting for the contribution of empirical elements to dissolve the vision that the world can be explained in an abstract as well as speculative way.
Positivism invokes facts as elements of factual reality and on that basis, not only theoretical but empirical knowledge is built. A basic rule of positivism is the separation between judgments of fact - understanding of the facts through empirical and operational concepts - and value judgments - understanding of the world based on ideologies and theoretical positions - to avoid losing objectivity and neutrality. in the treatment of social events based on methodological unity.
Critical rationalism
Faced with the position of positivism that proclaims the certainty of scientific knowledge, as well as the position that philosophers speak to themselves, an exponent of critical rationalism, such as Karl R. Popper, highlights that in scientific knowledge, what is important is understanding the logic of knowledge, which implies highlighting how it is known and what is known. It has as reasoning that the world exists independently of our subjectivities, that knowledge is a means of understanding the world, that the world cannot be understood subjectively, and that reality is the object of study that must be understood through conjectures and refutations.
There are no infallible or conclusive positions in knowledge, but they are subject to contrast. Therefore, theories are networks that we launch into the world to capture, rationalize, and explain it with the help of statements, without the intention of reaching certainty in the conclusions obtained.
Another angle is the fact that critical rationalism questions are historicism in the social sciences, arguing that there are laws of social development, which implies that human phenomena are governed by prediction, not by change and transformation. Historicism gives rise not to scientific procedures, but to prophecies, which aim to predict the events of the world. For this reason, a critical and rational stance is essential to advance the production of scientific knowledge. Thus, as Popper well points out, it is not feasible to elaborate a historical and social science with the foundations of physics. In this regard, it proposes a "technological methodology" so that through social engineering, the modification and transformation of history can be influenced.
Falsification
Regarding falsificationism, Popper also develops this methodological position to allude that no theory is forceful, irrefutable and accurate. What is important in this case is not that theory allows a high degree of verification to be achieved about what it postulates, but rather that its effectiveness depends on it not being considered as a finished system, without the need for further falsification processes.
In this case, the important thing is not to generate theories that are governed by the calculation of probabilities to have confidence in them, nor to consider that they have absolute rigor that allows them to highlight their certainty, without the need for it to be subjected to new falsifications. Therefore, the use of empirical hypotheses is essential to work with scientific knowledge, which is organized based on statements. The use of the trial and error method to advance within the framework of better conjectures and refutations is fundamental in this vision.
Comparative method
Comparative Method has the advantage of studying the similarities and differences between the social, political, economic, administrative, and governmental structures that integrate modern life with the State, society, civil organizations, cultural organizations, and economic organization, among other aspects.
It allows delving into the analysis of actors, contexts, processes, times, and developments that are organized as systems of institutions and mode of operation that allow the governance of societies. At the same time, it allows the analysis and study of the culture, values, history, and form of government and behavior of the bureaucratic bodies that are fundamental to assess the fulfillment of collective goals based on what societies and how they mobilize resources to develop.
In this case, it is essential to highlight the degree of development between the societies, the government and the State, understood as the most important forms of articulation that exist in the community. The issue of development requires an understanding of the factors, processes and times that make it possible not in a homogeneous way, but in a diverse and contrasting way.
Structuralism
Structuralism is founded on a horizontal vision of knowledge that includes the fields of linguistics, anthropology, psychoanalysis and epistemology. It is a vision that is nourished with the concurrence of various knowledge and disciplines and has as a conspicuous exponent Ferdinand de Saussure, Vincent Descombes and Jacques Lacan. The core point of structuralism is oriented by understanding the importance of the concepts of structure 11and language to analyze codes, signs and the phonetic image. What is distinctive about this approach is that the individual is not subject to external pressures as Emile Durkheim studies in social events, but that the use of language does not respond to any subordination or control, which implies that language itself precedes structure and the community life in which the individual develops (Moebius, 2012: 526-527).
In this case, there is a process in which the linguistic communities are the ones that create the meaning of the concepts.
Key Factors of Structuralism
The central points of structuralism are:
1. Society is only understood as the sum of the parts, not as individual actions or individuals.
2. The meanings are not given, but are the creation of specific languages; there are floating meanings - absence of certain meanings, according to Levis Strauss - until reaching the meanings of things.
3. Individuals are subordinated to structures and only with the use of language does it generate its own subjectivity.
4. The totality of the structures is more important than the sum of individuals and their parts.
5. Its postulate is historicity; it implies that the structures are stable, durable and balanced to control social relations.
6. The validity of structuralism transcends cultures and applies to all symbolic orders.
On the other hand, a contribution of poststructuralism applied to the social sciences is that it does not start from the tradition-modernity dichotomy to study the importance of time in society, but rather investigates traces, antecedents, inter-contextualities, as well as historical inferences to lead to It carries out the understanding of social, political, and cultural phenomena.
Another contribution is the non-acceptance of universalization as a means of study. Still, others is that history is not understood as a continuity of the past and present but from inferences. They stand out in the study of systems not their homogeneity, but rather de-differentiation, the hybrid, the transgression of borders and codes that transcend borders.
Functionalism
The idea of functional unity that Emile Durkheim coined in The Rules of the Sociological Method of 1895, is taken up by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons in his 1937 work, The structure of social action , in which he uses the concept of function on four axes :
1. The individual and collective actor.
2. The goal (future state).
3. A situation that can be divided into conditions and means.
4. The normative regulation of the media.
Furthermore, it analyzes society as a system of action that is structured by four functional imperatives:
1. Adaptation, where is the task of the economic subsystem to provide goods and services.
2. Obtaining purposes that are in charge of the policy and institutions that regulate the established order.
3. Maintaining latent patterns that the cultural subsystem must fulfill.
4. Integration carried out by the social subsystem.
Parsons is considered an author who applies the foundations of systems theory to the study of society not conservatively, but highlighting categories such as change and stability from the perspective of evolutionism and differentiation of society as key elements to analyze its development.
Another exponent of the application of structuralism and functionalism to the analysis of society is Niklas Luhmann in works such as The concept of function in the science of administration , from 1958; Function and causality , from 1962; Functional Method and Systems Theory, 1964, and Social Systems, from 1991. In Luhmann's ideas, there is an approach that he calls structural functionalism, unlike the structural-functionalism that Parsons worked on. He understands the social order not as something given or as a datum, but as a set of problems that must be considered to solve them. His approach is channeled to the understanding of the contingencies that influence the formation of structures, which he understands based on the dynamic concept of function.
Another element that stands out is that it uses the complexity category of the world to refer to the relationships established between various elements that give rise to self-reference.
In this case, one more contribution by Luhmann is that he uses the concept of the system when he refers to entities that have the capacity between what is their identity and what corresponds to their environment.
It is fundamental in his vision that systems are means to reduce the complexity of the world in terms of the instruments and devices that they apply to define and solve social problems, with which he talks about the meaning of the functional method in systems theory.
Methodological and theoretical vision of the social sciences
In the contemporary view on the study of the social sciences, theoretical and methodological formulations stand out that, since the 1990s, provide elements for reflection and analysis to understand social phenomena more clearly. They emphasize in this sense:
1. Public action.
2. Constructivism.
3. The behavior of social action.
4. The social and cultural history of the concepts.
Public action
Its objective is to analyze the development of a society based on non-state-centric formulations, but from a perspective in which governmental and non-governmental actors concur. Duran who in various works analyze the meaning of public action (Cabrero, 2005: 21). Its study coverage is the dynamic aspects that concur in the formation of the public agenda, which highlights both the interaction and the cooperation of the actors to give public policy treatment to the problems of community life.
The core of this case is that governments have limits of attention and the resources they have to fulfill collective tasks. And on the other hand, groups in contemporary society are not willing to cede spaces of freedom, action and management to states that once saturate society itself with interventionist policies. With the focus of public action, it is possible to identify that the task of governing 12 and administering requires the participation of organized groups in society, to avoid the formation of public monopolies in charge of authority and, therefore, limit movements. of society in achieving collective goals.
In a proposal scheme, public action is the sum of governmental and non-governmental actors that, from the angle of cooperation, add initiatives, capacities, resources, organization and technology in a consensual way to give attention and solution to collective problems. In this way, the task of governing is developed on the basis of building consensus and agreement in the logic of public policy.
Constructivism
Its focus elements are those related to the understanding of the world of life, the importance of intersubjectivity and the valuation of social action, elements that are taken up in the social sciences to nurture the understanding of actions in civil society. His method criterion is oriented to carry out the construction of reality with the influence of the sociology of knowledge. An exponent of phenomenological sociology has been Alfred Schütz with his work Phenomenology of the Social World and in his ideas, there are approaches to constructivism to carry out the analysis of the meaning of reality. In this case, experiences as meaning have conceptual value, not only the social structure that would have independence in the lives of individuals.
The structures of the world of life play a basic role in the new methodological vision of the social sciences, from the moment that it is possible to elaborate formulations that allow the interpretation of phenomenal reality to be carried out. Schütz's contribution is that it highlights, in order to carry out the construction of knowledge, to analyze the importance of the meaning of life, as well as in the way of constructing knowledge, in addition to opening the possibility of the subjective interpretation it takes in It tells about the problem, the meaning, the biographical situations, the wealth of knowledge, the ways of reasoning in everyday life, motivational diversity and the place of others ( Retamozo, 2012: 381).
The usefulness of constructionism in the social sphere has had contributions to understand the discourse in public policies. These are not only instrumental in nature but are part of the world of life from the moment they relate to actors, contexts, problems and public solutions in which groups, movements and organizations that have structured with joint action, an intersubjective vision that is identified with the definition and solution of collective problems.
In this way, the construction of discourses associated with public policies makes it possible to understand, in terms of associated life, how certain issues become matters on the government's agenda, what discourses were invoked to achieve that objective, how it is possible to convince other actors with the discourse to add support and how the discourse in constructivist terms affects the processes of implementation and evaluation of public policies.
Constructivism, in this case, allows the study of the language underlying the assessment and adoption of public policies understood in the field of the social construction of reality. Thus, interactions, languages, the meaning of public policies, the analysis of values and the world view are the object of study that with the help of constructivism it is feasible to understand them in the study of social analysis.
The behavior of social action
At this point, Jon Elster's contributions stand out, in particular his work, The explanation of social behavior. More nuts and bolts for the social sciences. His basic thesis is that human behavior, in the modality of social action, does not explain in itself, but by reason of causal explanations, which implies that there is always a prior phenomenon that explains the caused phenomenon that becomes the object of study. Therefore, it is not enough to study only the consequences of problems, but also their causes. He stresses that the task of the social sciences is to explain social phenomena, although it is not the only but the most important.
Therefore, it is emphasized that the action that denotes behaviors has its origin in interactions that are fed with the understanding of how the mind works to understand preferences, values, motivations, beliefs and desires. Thus, he explains that social action is not only a product of the rational behavior of the subjects but that there are subjective elements that influence the various manifestations of people and groups in modern society, which also explain points such as interest, passion and reason, which move social behaviors based on collective action.
The social and cultural history of concepts
Words and actions are explained not abstractly, but based on their social and cultural value. The importance of experience is fundamental to locate the importance of language, its interpretation, and the meanings that are derived with the competition of concepts (Koselleck, 2006: 29). The application of these to carry out the integration of experiences gives another meaning to the questions of the analysis of social reality. Concepts connect with the state of things they capture and explain.
The way of relating concepts to the state of things is through conceptual history. Hence the importance of semantics for understanding the languages that are formed to explain the meaning of phenomena.
The importance of language in the analysis of social reality is fundamental, even for linguistic reasons, since language is not only receptive but productive and is a key element in perception, understanding and knowledge; abounds when he affirms that semantics and onomasiology are fundamental to understand the historical transformation of concepts such as reality, the reason for interpretation and understanding. For the social sciences, these elements are fundamental, since it avoids incurring in the abstraction or the immediate explanation of the problems and phenomena, without questioning the social and cultural importance of the concepts.
Recovering for discussion, analysis, and proposals on the phenomena and problems of collective life, with the help of semantics, is essential to produce new meanings that contribute to rethinking conventional approaches that still have a positivist influence. That is why the author highlights that the conceptual history of language, on the one hand, is an indicator of previously given reality and, on the other, a factor of that reality. “Conceptual history is not materialistic or idealistic, it asks both about the experiences and states of affairs that are embodied in its concept, and how these experiences and states of affairs are understood” (Koselleck, 2006: 45).
Conclusion
The methodological importance of the social sciences has to be reviewed and strengthened so that they consolidate a clear place in the world of disciplines and knowledge. The old Aristotelian, abstract, positivist and deterministic discussion is not functional for the times of contemporary society. The world has changed and therefore the social sciences have to review their research methods and their methodological involvement in light of the old and new problems that still have no clear and timely answer. It is necessary to emphasize that the methodological knowledge of the social sciences implies the revision of the methods that are used to investigate the problems and realities.
There are no infallible methods; therefore, its analysis is important to locate the strengths that must be increased and eliminate the weaknesses that limit its effectiveness. Knowledge of Social Sciences is not conclusive either, but it is part of challenges that must be faced to validate its validity, even more so in a time that, like the current one, has no resting point, but is in constant transformation. From what is stated in the work, it can be inferred that the debate on methods in the social sciences cannot be postponed, nor can the review of the scope of the methodology as a critical analysis of methods.
It is important that the academic and professional communities have as their task that the debate on methods and methodology in the social sciences is more frequent. Otherwise, stagnation is a risk that may be a reality, when the tools to build and reproduce knowledge —methods— do not enter a review phase that allows validating their conceptual and applied effectiveness.
Bibliography
Balandier, 1997.The mess. The Theory of Chaos and the social sciences, Editorial Gedisa , Barcelona ( 1997 )
Bachelard, 2009. The philosophy of no Essay of a philosophy of the new scientific spirit, Amorrortu editores , Buenos Aires, Argentina ( 2009 )
Bunge, 2009. Scientific research , Siglo XXI Editores , Mexico ( 2009 )
Cabrero Mendoza, 2005.Public action and local development , FCE / CIDE , Mexico ( 2005 )
Cejudo, 2005.Discourse and Public Policies. Constructivist approach
Mauricio Merino , et al. (Eds.) , Problems, decisions and solutions. Public policy approaches , FCE / CIDE , Mexico ( 2005 )
Gortari, 1980.The methodology: a discussion and other essays on the method , Grijalbo , México ( 1980 )
Garza Toledo and Leyva, 2012.De la Garza Toledo , Gustavo Leyva (Eds.) , Treatise on Methodology of the Social Sciences: Current Perspectives , FCE / UAM , Mexico ( 2012 )
Elster, 1996.Nuts and bolts. An introduction to the basic concepts of Social Sciences , Editorial Gedisa , Barcelona ( 1996 )
Elster, 2007.The explanation of social behavior. More nuts and bolts for the social sciences , Editorial Gedisa , Barcelona ( 2007 )
Enrique de la Garza Toledo , Gustavo Leyva (Eds.) , Treatise on Social Sciences Methodology: Current Perspectives , FCE / UAM , Mexico ( 2012 )
Ferrel, 2000. Public administration. A comparative perspective , FCE , Mexico ( 2000 )
Koselleck, 2012. Concept stories. Studies on semantics and pragmatics of political and social language , Editorial Trotta , Madrid ( 2012 )
King et al., 2000. The design of social research. Scientific inference in qualitative studies , Alianza Editorial , Madrid ( 2000 )
Luhmann, 2009. Introduction to Systems Theory , Universidad Iberoamericana , México ( 2009 )
Merino, 2010. Problems, decisions and solutions. Public policy approaches , FCE / CIDE , Mexico ( 2010 )
Morín, 2009. Method I. The nature of nature , Cátedra , Madrid ( 2009 )
Jean and García, 1982. Psychogenesis and History of Science , XXI Century , Mexico ( 1982 )
Popper, 1991. Conjectures and refutations , Editorial Paidós , Madrid / Barcelona ( 1991 )
Punch, 2005. Introduction to Social Research. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches , Sage , London ( 2005 )
Retamozo, 2012. Constructivism: Epistemology and Methodology in the Social Sciences
Enrique de la Garza Toledo , Gustavo Leyva (Eds.) , Treatise on Social Sciences Methodology: Current Perspectives , FCE / UAM , Mexico ( 2012 )
Sartori, 2012. Jorge Islas (Ed.) , How to do political science , Editorial Taurus , México ( 2012 )
Tarrés, 2001. Tarrés María Luisa (Ed.) , Observe, listen and understand. On the qualitative tradition in social research , El Colegio de México / FLACSO / MA Porrúa , México ( 2001 )
Van Evera, 2002. Guide for political science students. Methods and resources , Gedisa , Barcelona ( 2002 )
Comments