D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl1 PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’: A REMINDER D.Gile [email protected]

D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl 1

PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’:A REMINDER

D.Gile

[email protected]

www.cirinandgile.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cirinandgile.com/


Speaker’s bias

- Initial training in mathematics

- Also training in sociology(empirical studies orientation)

- No training in humanities

- Observation of research practice as an interpreter in scientific conferences

- Teaching research methods in mixed environments (students of Japanese, T&I and terminology students)

- Analysis of research in humanities through contact with translation research


Main points of presentation

• Reminder about the Scientific Approach, its rationale and norms → CSA

• The Scientific Approach/CSA is not necessarily the best way to explore the world

• Sophisticated methods are not necessarily the best in all circumstances

• Compliance with ‘scientific’ norms is not correlated with the degree of sophistication of the methods used

• When doing a PhD, need to choose paradigm and comply with the relevant norms


Science: a reminder (1)

Our knowledge about the World/representation of the World comes from:

- Experiential knowledge (direct experience through sensory experience and its

analysis)

- Inherited knowledge (what we learn from others)

and What our brain does with all the information



Data acquisition and their processing by the brain are constrained by:

- Sensory limitations

- Cognitive limitations

- Emotional interference(which tends inter alia to make us see what we want to/expect to see and disregard what we would not like

to see/do not expect)



Recognizing these limitations, philosophers and scientists

have been developing for centuries the ‘Scientific Approach’ (SA),

in order to push them back.

The Canonical Scientific Approach(some sort of ideal)

Relies strongly on empirical research,that is, on the collection and analysis of data

and on a strict use of such data for inferencing



SA was first used in the natural sciences,

it was also imported into social sciences

Henceforth ‘CSA’ – Canonical Scientific Approach

Some of its norms (in particular writing norms) are found in the humanities as well

On the whole, it is found in empirical disciplines more than in theoretical disciplines


Norms and methods

SA/CSA can be represented through:

- Conceptual Norms- Social norms and institutions to enforce their

implementation (academic hierarchy, peer reviewing…)

Social norms and institutions are very similar in CSA and in non-CSA academic disciplines

- Technical research methods- Writing norms


Conceptual norms (1)

‘Science’ (CSA) is supposed to be

‘Rigorous’- Systematic- Cautious

- Objective

Logical

‘Collective’ - Communicative

- Critical - Explicit


Conceptual norms (2)

In concrete terms, CSA scholars:

- Systematically conduct empirical testing of their ideas and theories

- Systematically provide evidence to back up claims

- Are explicit about their materials, methods and factual and/or logical grounds for their claims

- Make a clear distinction between documented facts and speculative thoughts


SCIENTIFIC CAUTION…

A carpenter, a schoolteacher and a scientistwere travelling by train in Scotland.

They saw a black goat through the window.

“So”, said the carpenter, “We now know that goats are black in Scotland”

“You mean that some Scottish goats are black?”, said the schoolteacher.

“No”, said the scientist. “All we know is that there is at least one goat in Scotland and that that goat is black at least on one

side”.


THE SCIENTIFIC CYCLE – POPPERIAN MODEL (1)

Observation (empirical)

Provisional Generalization(theory)

Factual testing (empir.)

New generalization(theory)


THE ERA CYCLE (More realistic)

OBSERVATION

THEORY

(EMPIRICAL) TESTING + SOCIAL FORCES

NEW/IMPROVED THEORY

(EMPIRICAL) TESTING + SOCIAL FORCES

. . .[ Inter alia: Kuhn’s theories of scientific (r)evolution ]


THEORIES AND TESTING IN ERA

New theories are considered Provisional

models/explanations of reality

They are tested systematically for match with empirical data

The expectation being (in principle) that they will be found to be

only partially adequate and will have to be improved


CSA – EMPIRICAL RESEARCH


THE HUMAN SCIENCES APPROACHES (HSA)

- Mostly conceptual analysis – Essays

- Can be empirical - in a wide sense (with examples, not representative samples in the statistical

sense of the word, i.e. samples designed to represent the same features as the population)

- Personal interpretation of phenomena, statements, actions without necessarily considering alternatives

- In many cases, subjectivity is accepted as valid, corrections being expected to come from discussion with other scholars


THE HSA CYCLE

OBSERVATION or IDEAS/THEORIES

DISCUSSION

(Reflection)NEW / IMPROVED (?) THEORIES

NO EMPIRICAL TESTING

BUT EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM OTHER SCHOLARS’ STUDIES CAN BE TAKEN ON BOARD IN THE

DISCUSSION


ARE NEW THEORIES IN HSA ‘IMPROVED’ THEORIES?

Sometimes they are because of better thinking

butThey need not be

As they are not required to fit reality better than previous theories

So move from one theory to the nextMay be due to more powerful rhetoric by a leader,

to fashion…



HSA vs. CSA- HSA less cautious

(No strong requirement that samples be representative No testing requirement before claims)

- Less stringent objectivity requirements

- Less stringent explicitness requirement

Authors can make claims without explicating their tentative nature, without testing them, without providing evidence

systematically.More generally, inferences are not subject to strict, logic and

scepticism-driven rules to the same extent as in CSA.

So not fully compliant with SA norms


HSA INFERIOR TO CSA?

Perhaps loss in reliability

but

- Faster - Some theories cannot be tested or tested well (difficult to find valid measurable indicators, variability…)

HSA does provide a way of exploring phenomena collectively and critically.

Cannot say it is “inferior” in absolute terms


CSA vs. HSA and other types of exploration of reality

- No claim that CSA is better than HSA

- No claim that CSA is better than direct experience, intuition and other ways of exploring the world

- Non-scientific exploration often leads to faster and more extensive knowledge acquisition

- No special value to “Science”

- But CSA corresponds to a specific approach and behavior, partly different from the approaches

generally found in the humanities


Typical objectives of CSA vs. HSA studies

CSA- Explore/Find out about something- Test a theory- Develop a method to explore/test something, a theory …

HSA- Think about a phenomenon (its meaning, relation with other phenomena,…)- Analyze a theory- Compare theories …


WHY DIFFERENTIATE CSA / HSA? (1)

Criticized in CSA, acceptable in HSA:- “Unsubstantiated claims”- “Personal, subjective conclusions”- “Interpretation of phenomena without considering alternative explanations”- “Theories without intent to test them”- “Classifications with no apparent purpose”- “Prescriptive & judgmental attitudes”- “Not quite accurate representation of facts”- “Randomly (or) biased selection of examples”


WHY DIFFERENTIATE CSA / HSA? (2)

Criticized in HSA, acceptable in CSA:

- “Concepts defined operationally are not defined well enough conceptually”

- “Focus too narrow (failure to address more relevant aspects for practical or methodological reasons), so exploration incomplete”

- “Focus too narrow, focuses on one theory only whereas there are many…”

- “Pointless accumulation of data”- “Research with no social relevance”


DOES ONE HAVE TO CHOOSE?

Question often put to me, quest for common ground

I do not see a theoretical impossibilityTo conduct one part of a project under CSA

and one under HSA(eg establishing facts by observation

then speculating on them)One example: Karen Bennett. 2008.

English academic discourse: its hegemonic status and implications for translation. University of Lisbon.

butTwo projects in one

Potential problems with supervisor, with assessors


NOT ALL ACADEMIC TEXTS ARE HSA OR CSA

Because not all of them are research projects

- Didactic texts- Literature reviews / state-of-the-art reviews

- Analyses of situations and policies- Reflections on various technical/“political” issues

Published in academic journals/proceedings etc.but not as research projects

Research projects, especially PhDs, are generally considered different in nature

With specific research questionsAnd reader/assessor expectations about norms


Requirements from PhD Work

1. Comply with ‘scientific’ norms (CSA or HSA)

2. Innovate - Facts (Not yet known, which require research to be uncovered) → CSA - Ideas → HSA, CSA (Hypotheses, Models, New interpretations of data, New

concepts) - Research methods → CSA if development & testing

included


LOCAL CONDITIONS

NORMS VARY(CSA versus HSA, length of thesis, theoretical exploration,

empirical versus theoretical, citations, writing style,…)

FOR PhD STUDENTS: THE ‘RIGHT’ NORMS ARE THE SUPERVISOR’S

NORMS

THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED INNOVATION VARIES:‘ENOUGH’ IS WHEN THE SUPERVISOR SAYS IT IS


WARNING/REASSURANCE

- Most contributions of scientists in any research project are small

- Most major contributions are the result of major, prolonged, collective efforts

- Don’t be overambitious(Risk of failure, of burn-out)

- Don’t aim for major innovation in your PhD

- Read other PhDs and identify and assess their contribution

- Seek to make a similar contributionIf you can do better, fine – but it is not mandatory

Documents

D. Gile Doct semin 1 Engl1 PRINCIPLES OF ‘SCIENCE’: A REMINDER D.Gile [email protected]