1. Approaches to social sciences: Presentation by
Andrew Mashingaidze 200913743
E.M Ledwaba
The Deductive Monological Model of Scientific Explanation.
According to positivists social sciences are to follow the method of natural sciences in explaining
behaviour. The D-N model, considers an explanation of an event to be a deductive argument in
which the conclusion follows logically from the premises, is one such model (Babbie,& mouton,
2001: 24-25). Carl Hampel (1905- 1997) argues that a deductive argument assumes the following
format.
C1, C2,………CK
L1, L2,……….LK
E
Where C1…..Ck are statements describing particular fact and L1…..Lkare general laws. Put
together general facts and laws of an event make up the explanans. E in this case would
refer to the explanandum i.e., event being explained (Balashov, Rosenberg, 2002: 46-47). If
posed with the question as to why railway tracks that are in direct contact with each other
bent on a hot day? The D-N model will say, P1 all metals expand when heated (C1). P2 railway
tracks are made of metal (L1). Thus all railway tracks expand when heated (E) (Babbie,&
mouton, 2001: 24-25).
The Verifiable Criterion.
Developed by Rudolf Carnap in 1932, argues that scientific statements are based on direct
experience and controlled by experimental verification. This implies that a scientific
explanation is acceptable only if it has been verified through direct explanation. Scientific
propositions in this instance can be direct representation of facts (brute facts) or statements
that indirectly refer to reality (theoretical statements)(Babbie,& mouton, 2001: 25). Positivism
supports the following views.
1. Naturalist Interpretation of Objectivity.
Naturalism is a model of objectivity used in natural sciences. Objectivity entails approaching
an issue with no preconceived ideas.
2. Empiricist Theory of Knowledge.
The claim that all knowledge is found in experiences and observations i.e., scientific data
must be verified by our senses.
3. Humean conception of causality.

2. Causality is the regular relationship between observable events which can be formalized in law-like
statements or the repeated interaction between two variables.
2. The Phenomenological Tradition.
The phenomenological tradition is based on the idea of human consciousness, consciousness being
one’s awareness of external objects. Unlike positivists who emphasize on the similarities between
objects of natural and social sciences, phenomenologists consider their differences. Human sciences
in this regard aim at understanding the human being who is regarded as conscious, self-directing and
symbolic. Humans can be understood through interpretation, justifying and rationalizing their
actions. Other metatheories that oppose positivism include.
1. Hermeneutics.
As outlined by Wilhem Dilthey and Max Weber, hermeneutics is concerned with the human
experiences as they are lived, with the aim of creating meaning and understanding (Laverty, 2003:
10). Like phenomenology understanding is archived through interpretation (Patterson, & Williams,
2002: 10). One fundamental contribution of hermeneutics was how it distinguished natural from
human sciences. Natural science describe and explain external relations between natural
phenomenon by use of laws while human sciences on the other hand try to understand the internal
relationship between actions by looking at ideas and values that arise from them (Babbie, & mouton,
2001: 31).
2. Symbolic interactionism.
Place emphasis on the role of inner mental processes like the mind and self in people’s experiences.
These mental processes are important in understanding the relation between individuals and
society.
3. The Analytical Tradition.
Peter Winch claims that human actions are meaningful in a way in which events in the natural world
are not. Meaning in this instance is rule-governed. Hence social science studies carried out according
to rules aim at understanding the rules in which the activities are carried out.
Bibliography
Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. 2001. The Practice of Social Research. 9th ed. Cape Town: Oxford University
Press.
Balashov, Y. Rosenberg, A, 2002. Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London, Routledge.
Laverty, S. M. 2003. Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of History
and Methodological Considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2(3).
Patterson, M E. & William, D. R. 2002. Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data: Hermeneutic
Principle, Methods, and case Examples. USA, Sagamore Publishing