Blog

Competing Social Science Paradigms

Three Competing Social Science Paradigms

According to Popkewitz, there are three main paradigms or intellectual traditions which compete in mainstream social sciences. Each paradigm “… contains different assumptions about the social world, questions about the social predicament of institutions and solutions to problems of … social life …” (Popkewitz, 1984, p. 32). These three paradigms will be described in more detail below.

1. The Empirical-Analytic Paradigm:

The theories developed under the Empirical-Analytic Paradigm are separate from practice. These theories are believed to describe what exists and to have predictive qualities. This is the paradigm of conservative sociology and demands an acceptance of the current values and structure of society.

The main ideas in the empirical-analytic paradigm are:

• Theory is universal, not bound to a specific context or circumstances (Principle of generalizability).
• The purpose of science is analytical. Scientific statements are believed to be value free (Principle of descriptiveness).
• There is a belief that the social world exists as a system of variables which are distinct and analytically separable parts of an interacting system (Principle of predictability).
• There is a belief in formalized knowledge (Principle of measurability).
• There is a reliance on mathematics in theory construction (Principle of quantification).

2. The Symbolic Paradigm:

The main ideas in the symbolic paradigm are:

• Social relations are created and sustained through symbolic interactions and patterns of conduct.
• In daily social interactions, there are rules of behaviour which govern social relations.
• This paradigm assumes that humans ‘make’ their own behaviour according to rules established by each specific culture or group.
• Humans differ from the rest of the natural world in the use of symbolic languages for communicating and interpreting the events of everyday life.

Other terms for this paradigm are: interpretive or hermeneutic. Hermeneutic describes a branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation and theories of interpretation. For example, in the field of social work, child welfare from a mainstream theory assumes that childcare is primarily a nuclear family responsibility whereas, in the Indigenous context, it is often viewed as a communal or community responsibility.

Within this paradigm, the behaviours and expectations regarding social roles are different in different situations. For example, the behaviour and expectations of a kindergarten teacher are different from those of a university professor even though both are teachers.

Popkewitz (1984, pp. 42-43) describes two main assumptions of this paradigm:

• The importance of inter-subjectivity in reaching consensual norms. What is considered ‘real’ or ‘valid’ to a group or society is so because of mutual agreement among members of the group.
• Motive and reason are important elements in social theory. Symbolic theorists state there are two types of causation in social affairs – ‘because of’ and ‘in order to’ – and both types of causation must be accounted for in explaining social relations. Motive and reason must always be accounted for.

The symbolic paradigm is similar to the empirical-analytical paradigm in that it assumes that science is politically neutral and value free. It seeks to describe what is, rather than to change it; “… theory is essentially contemplative …” (Popkewitz, 1984, p. 44). Symbolic theorists see their inquiries as ahistorical; the focus is on what is now occurring.

Environmental Social Work Theory operates within the symbolic paradigm. Environmental Theory considers that both individual and social welfare are entwined within the relationship between humans and environment — emphasis is on the effect of environment on the individual.

3. The Critical Paradigm:

The main ideas in the critical paradigm are:

• Critical approach is a response to the rapid social changes in mainstream culture and to specific social problems brought about by these changes.
• Science is never neutral and always value laden.
• It is an ideological tool used by the dominant group in a culture to perpetuate the values and dominance of the group.
• The dominant group within a society determines what is and is not accepted as valid and truthful within the culture. The dominant class or group defines what constitutes social deviance.
• Truth is always a cultural product and not an invariant entity: what one society believes to be true, another may consider to be false and each will bring the forces of scientific theory to bear in proving its case.
• The critical paradigm has as its purpose not just to describe the world, but to change it.

The main assumptions of the Critical Paradigm are:

• Critical science investigates the dynamics of social change in order to unmask the structural constraints and contradictions that exist in society.
• Causation in social relations is the result of the intersection of history, social structure and biography — social relations are caused by when and where they are taking place and the power relationship between the interactors.
• Critical science is subjective rather than objective.
• Critical theory is holistic.
• Science and theory are seen as dynamic rather than static. The critical paradigm operates on a model of constant action and reflection between theory and practice.

Radical or critical social work sees economic equality as the most important factor in determining social welfare. Individual welfare is seen as the development of individual potential in the context of social cooperation within an egalitarian social structure. It assumes that conflicts of interest between segments of society arise from the inequalities of economic power.

Learning Activity 1.1

Consider Popkewitz’ presentation of the three main paradigms as outlined. In what paradigm would you place Aboriginal Theory and why?