Making Social Science Matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. .

Hamel, Pierre

Flyvbjerg, Bent.

Making Social Science Matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

204pp.

ISBN: 0-521-77568-X

$19.95 US (paperback)

Over the last two decades, within the field of the social sciences, researchers have paid more attention to methodological problems and to the strategies that may contribute to resolving them. This is due to at least two intertwined factors. The first comes from the field of social research as such, defined as a specific institutional area where professional researchers find their usefulness and their legitimacy. The second one is related to the increasingly applied character of the social sciences and to the new challenges that are arising from this trend.

The book deals with these factors, making a strong plea for the case study as a method that is particularly suitable for reflecting the contextual nature of the social sciences, especially in regard to their applied character. Here, I am not suggesting that this work is mostly a practical manual for those who want to conduct inquiry by relying on case studies, even though useful guidelines are offered along these lines. In fact, it is more an attempt to stress the importance of case study as a valuable approach in the field of the social sciences as the influence of natural sciences and predictive theories seems to be stronger than ever. For this reason, the author insists on the nature and specificity of the social sciences, stating that "conflict and power are phenomena constitutive of social and political inquiry" (3). Consequently, several chapters cope with epistemological and theoretical problems concerning the nature of knowledge and the way to overcome rationalist perspectives. According to the author , this is the only way to give back to the social sciences a new legitimacy for studying social action and for taking part actively in the transformation of social practices.

The specificity of human and social sciences is revisited through several paths. First of all, this specificity is constructed in opposition to the explanatory and predictive orientation of natural sciences. Social sciences are often fascinated by the strong image that the natural sciences have acquired in their capacity to foster progress. Such a project could not be achieved by the social sciences, especially because of the normative or value-laden nature of problems they are coping with. This is what brings social sciences to elaborate a different perspective based on hermeneutics, interpretation or understanding -- in opposition to explanation and prediction--in order to engage in a learning process of its own. As Alain Caille has written, these sciences "cannot be cognitive without being normative" (1989). Of course, over the last decades, several attempts have been made to give the social sciences more solid moorings for elaborating their originality and specificity. Flyvbjerg's enterprise is not necess arily original. He relies on Aristotle's philosophy of knowledge, on Habermas's communicative rationality (in spite of his criticism of Habermas), on Nietzche' sand Foucault's visions of power and learning. He also pays tribute to Robert N. Bellah and his collaborators for their concern for subjectivity and normative dilemmas in human endeavours. But this is certainly not where the main interest of this book lies, even though the author succeeds in this respect in elaborating a good synthesis. His main achievement is the fact that he convinces the reader that applied social sciences have a valuable destiny, and that context dependent research is worthwhile.

The book is divided into two parts. The first part gives an account of the "failure," so to speak, of the social sciences, while the second part is dedicated to building a critical perspective, which the author qualifies as "phronetic social science," based at the outset on Aristotle's conception of knowledge, as mentioned earlier -- defined in relationship to prudence and practical reason --, aiming at restoring the capacity of the social sciences to cope with practical issues, at giving them a new social and political pertinence. In the second part, the objective is to construct a sound approach in the social sciences, starting with the fact that there is a "need for alternatives to instrumental rationalism" (54). In that respect, phronetic social science accepts the need to be confronted with meaning and subjectivity, but also -- and in that Flyvbjerg is forced to go beyond Aristotle --, to be articulated to considerations concerning power.

The book's strength is that the argument is clear. The place given to the case study is understandable and convincingly argued. This is particularly important in the field of urban studies where the context is so vital in order to clarify the issues at stake and where, as in other fields of the social sciences, the relationships between rationality and power have to be included in any attempt to better understand the complexity of socio-economic and socio-political interactions.

One may question Flyvbjerg's a priori concerning his vision of the opposition between the natural and the social sciences. When we look at the way technical controversies are launched nowadays in this "world ridden with uncertainty," to paraphrase the title of a book by Gallon, Lascoumes and Barthes (2001), it appears more and more difficult to reiterate such a division. Hybrid forums are becoming mundane. More and more often, scientists and experts are forced not only to explain publicly their research protocols, but also to describe their priorities, getting involved in democratic forums in order to respond to social justification concerns. Consequently, the natural sciences are becoming part of our daily life in various new ways, and they are increasingly part of institutional reflexivity as much as the social sciences are. This adds additional components to the debate and forces a revision of the traditional dividing line between the natural and the social sciences.

Still, renewed challenges are at the horizon for the social sciences. The need for them to better define their original and useful niche remains crucial. Overall, this book provides researchers in the field of urban studies with very useful tools and guidelines for getting involved with case studies and context dependent research.

References

Caille, Alain. 1989. Critique de la raison utilitaire. Paris: La Decouverte.

Callon, Michel, Lascoumes, Pierre and Yannick Barthe. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain.

Essai sur la democratie technique. Paris: Seuil.