EXPERIENCE BASED PERSPECTIVES OF AN “OLD ACADEMIC” ON “FALSE EMPIRICISM” AND “FEIGNED WOKISM” IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: SHALL THE TWAIN EVER MEET?
By Erwin Schwella
CONTEXT
It is famously, or maybe infamously said that:
Old academics do not die, they just lose their faculties; and
Academic battles are so fierce because the stakes are so low!
In context to what follows, this may be two initial and further false antinomies.
In my South African academic and professional social science career of close to 50 years, from being a carefree if not careless student, to becoming a more cautious academic as a perpetual student, paradigms shifted like tectonic plates, however just exponentially and more rapidly so. These shifts occurred in my beloved South Africa, whose shift to a rule of law constitutional democracy I celebrate with an ode of joy in analysis and action. I also celebrate this paradigm shift in South Africa by respectfully honouring our beautiful and symbolically rich democratic flag.
The South African dynamic is significantly connected to global shifts in state, society, business, ecology, and technology dynamics in a rapidly changing context requiring new paradigms, mental models, theories, methodology and concepts for competence, capacity towards effective and ethical transitional as well as transformational change. For relevancy in sensible analysis, action, advocacy and even activism as a human being and academic, which may be a contradiction in terms, there is a need for a deep immersion into systemic of global, national and local realities for sense-making in terms of sensitivity and sensibility. Such deep immersion, if done with integrity, empathy, compassion and reciprocity, probably results into an emergence of understanding and action which increase the further probability of making the world a better place.
The context, concepts, and ways of immersion towards emergence in understanding and action is relevant to social science philosophy, theory and methodology for the why, how and what of social science understanding and application. This opinion piece relates to this purpose, methodology and focus of social science. Here the specific emphasis is on the seeming contrast, if not conflict between the contrasting mental models in social science: these are postulated as, on the one hand, academic freedom, objectivity, empiricism and evidence-based purpose methods, and; on the other, social constructivism, lived experience, subjectivity, and empathy. In this battle of ideas, the derogatory terms used by the seeming opposing sides are conflictually and derogatively expressed as “pseudo-science” or “wokeness”.
CHALLENGES
Before engaging with this dilemmatic debate in academic language which often seems complicated and obfuscatory rather than simple and elucidating, a couple of basic common-sense observations in plain English:
On point, firstly it is clear that common sense is not so common anymore.
Secondly, where ideas are challenged for the purpose of power rather than understanding, the possibility of compromise (based on common sense, as a scarce commodity) becomes significantly increasingly improbable, and eventually impossible. Ideas get reduced to mere ideology and or/or thinking rather than and/and thinking. Thoughtful and useful purpose, focus and method is conquered by thoughtless, useless politicking where there is no benefit for anyone.
The forum becomes a battlefield.
Place capturing thinking and action, for exclusive selfish precedence rather than for inclusive serving purpose trumps space increasing innovative and creative possibilities for re-imagination, and redesign. The focus shifts from co-creating value to share mutually towards a zero-sum mental model and actions that what is available is finite and scarce and given this inevitably scarcity what I gain must be from you and vice versa. This probably results in a self-fulfilling prophecy where we have to abandon the scientific forum of thinking for the battlefield of war. In this destructive posture the battle is for less and less until inevitably it results in destruction and death. However preferably your death rather than mine, where you are killed, by me and you are dead. forever for nothing that is left.
Then, as Hobbes predicts, there emerges a war of all against all and life becomes, solitary, nasty brutish – and short (Kavka, 1983). This disastrous and deadly outcome may be avoidable with some reverence and reference to sensitivity and sensibility grounded philosophy of social science thinking and actions. For this one needs to start with contrasting views on evidence-based science and social constructivism approaches to what constitutes the why, as purpose, the how, as methodology and the what as focus of scientific inquiry in analysis and action.
And this elaboration is perhaps beyond mere plain English but still common social science sense, although not commonly held, it is respectfully submitted, even by social scientists.
CONCEPTS
Here follows the juxtaposition:
Contrasting social constructivism with evidence-based empiricism in social science methodology, especially from the activist perspectives of wokeness and academic freedom, involves examining the foundational differences in how knowledge is understood and applied within these frameworks.
For the Social Constructivism approach:
Epistemologically, social constructivism posits that knowledge is constructed through social interactions and cultural contexts.
It emphasizes the role of language, communication, and shared meanings in shaping our understanding of the world.
Ontologically, social constructivism suggests that reality is not fixed but is continually recreated through social processes. This perspective aligns with the activist stance of wokeness, which advocates for recognizing and addressing social inequalities and power dynamics in the construction of knowledge.
Academic Freedom: From a social constructivist viewpoint, academic freedom is essential for fostering diverse perspectives and challenging dominant narratives. It allows for the exploration of alternative viewpoints and the questioning of established truths.
For the Evidence-Based Empiricism approach:
Epistemologically, evidence-based empiricism holds that knowledge should be derived from observable facts and empirical evidence.
It relies on the scientific method and objective data to validate and verify its perspective on truth.
Ontologically, evidence-based empiricism assumes an objective reality that can be understood through measurement and observation. This approach may sometimes clash with the activist perspective of wokeness, which emphasizes the subjective experiences of marginalized groups.
Academic Freedom: In evidence-based empiricism, academic freedom is crucial for conducting unbiased research and for the pursuit of knowledge based on empirical evidence, free from ideological constraints.
In practice, social constructivism and evidence-based empiricism can both contribute to social science methodology. Social constructivism brings attention to the importance of context, culture, and power relations, while evidence-based empiricism provides a rigorous framework for testing hypotheses and validating knowledge. Balancing these approaches can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of social phenomena, respecting both the subjective experiences highlighted by wokeness and the objective rigor championed by the adherents to evidence based-empirical validation and verification.
On the basis of the argument presented above the next step in finding a synergistic approach towards a synthesis of and/and thinking in a creative scientific space may be interrogated by understanding and using the ideas related to the concept of false antinomy. False antinomy is another philosophical term.
And this elaboration is perhaps also beyond mere plain English.
An antinomy is a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable and therefore a mere paradox rather than reality. In the context of philosophy, particularly in the work of Immanuel Kant, an antinomy is a pair of faultless arguments that arrive at contradictory conclusions.
A false antinomy would then be an apparent contradiction where one or both of the arguments are actually flawed. It creates a situation where it seems like there is a logical contradiction, but further analysis reveals that the contradiction is only superficial and can be resolved by uncovering the errors in reasoning. In seminal fashion, Kant used the term “antinomy” to describe the tension between reason and experience, particularly in his critique of pure reason. Consequently, he presented several antinomies as a way to show the limits of human knowledge and the problems that arise when reason is applied beyond the empirical realm. In summary, a false antinomy is a seemingly contradictory situation that is not a true contradiction because it is based on a mistake in reasoning or understanding.
In the case in point the contrast postulated for empiricism and social constructivism may be a false antinomy and possibly only seemingly contradictory given or/or reactionary thinking in places rather than and/and thinking in re-imagining spaces.
Finally, for now, the question arises then on how this false antinomy may be dealt with in understanding and action towards a consensual a better world with constructive synergy rather than a destructive war of all against all.
CHANGE
A provisional suggestion to deal with this false antinomy is also emergent from social science philosophy and pragmatic thinking for understanding and action.
Addressing possible bias based on mental models as false antinomy in social science research is a multifaceted challenge that requires a comprehensive approach which will include:
Acknowledge and Identify Bias:
Recognize that bias is inevitable and can occur at any stage of the research process
Be transparent about potential biases in research methodology.
Diverse Perspectives:
Engage with participants from varied backgrounds to ensure a wide spectrum of experiences is represented.
Rigorous Methodology:
Employ rigorous research designs that include controls and blinding to minimize bias.
Use both qualitative and quantitative methods to cross-validate findings.
Critical Peer Review:
Subject research to critical peer review to identify and correct biases.
Encourage open dialogue and constructive criticism within the academic community.
Training and Education:
Provide training for researchers on recognizing and addressing bias.
Promote education on the ethical implications of bias in research.
Transparent Reporting:
Report all findings, including those that contradict hypotheses or are unfavourable.
Document the research process in detail to allow for scrutiny and replication.
Longitudinal Studies:
Conduct longitudinal studies to observe changes over time and reduce temporal bias.
Statistical Techniques:
Apply statistical techniques to control for confounding variables and biases.
Self-Reflection:
Encourage researchers to reflect on their own beliefs and how these may influence their work
Community Engagement:
Involve the community in the research process to ensure relevance and reduce researcher-imposed bias.
These corrections for personal and systemic biases may be too technicist in nature for die-hard ideologues and activists on both sides of the divide.
However, and just perhaps in courageous constructive conversations, they may serve to mitigate the worst destructive impacts of ideology in contrast to ideas and politics in contrast to professionalism in research-based understanding and action in the context of complex societal challenges. By implementing these strategies, social science research can perhaps. become more robust, reliable, and reflective of the complex social realities it aims to understand.
Hope springs eternally!
REFERENCES:
Kant, I. (1781) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by N. Kemp Smith, 1929. London: Macmillan
Kavka, G.S. (1983) ‘Hobbes’s War of All Against All’, Ethics, 93(2), pp. 291-310
Comments