Download View display copy

Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
Preface
This is the overview of the compulsory study material for the exam of the course “What
is good science?”. It contains a summary of all the mandatory literature and articles the
students are meant to study for the exam of the course.
This overview is written in accordance to the author’s own perception. While preparing
we try to guarantee the highest quality possible. However, SlimStuderen.nl cannot accept
responsibility for the use of this product. It serves as an addition to the mandatory
literature, not as a replacement.
Reprint is strictly forbidden. We will not be able to continuously offer updated
summaries if you provide this summary to third parties. Refrain from any
copying to enjoy our products next trimester!
SlimAnnouncements:
Quality: to keep the quality of this product at a high level, we are dependent on your
feedback. If you have any comments, tips or points of improvement, please mail them
to [email protected]. We will be able to use your feedback to improve our
summaries.
Authors: SlimStuderen.nl is always looking for authors! Are you interested in earning
money while you’re learning? Send your motivation and CV to [email protected].
Orders: because we still get many questions about the delivery time and order
procedure, we will try to answer these questions below.

If you placed your order before 19:00 and agreed to pay via an automatic
transfer, you will receive the summaries the next working day. Sometimes this
can take a little longer since we depend on TNT’s delivery services. The amount
will be withdrawn from your account only once.

Attention, the delivery time has been adjusted: summaries ordered via a manual
transfer, will be sent once a week. You will need to transfer the money to our
bank account number (NL81 ABNA 0590 3250 00) yourself. When you used
this method you will receive the summaries within 6 to 8 working days.
Social media
Visit Facebook.com/SlimStuderen to be informed about the publication of new
overviews and/or supplements!
Good luck with your exams!
SlimStuderen.nl
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
1
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
Table of Contents
PREFACE .................................................................................................. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... 2
A. CHAPTER 1: DIFFERENT APPROACHES OF “WHAT IS SCIENCE?” ....... 3
B. CHAPTER 2: ARE THE SOCIAL SCIENCES A SCIENCE? ........................ 7
C.
CHAPTER 3: SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE EUROPEAN STUDIES.... 11
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
2
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
A. Chapter 1: Different approaches of “What is science?”
The first chapter introduces the term science and explains what it is and how it
developed over the centuries. Furthermore, this chapter covers different views about how
scientific knowledge can be obtained. Hereby, it will be explicitly focused on Karl Popper’s
idea of ‘Falsification’ and Thomas Kuhn’s view about ‘Normal Science’ and its use of
‘Paradigms’.
What is science?
Naming an area a science gives it authority and reliability as science is highly valued in
society. The view is widely held that science is truth and a way of knowing the world.
Nowadays, many areas of study are named sciences, for example human and Social
Sciences, to imply that the methods used are as reliable as those used in traditional
sciences such as in physics or biology. The social and human sciences also try to apply
the methods used in traditional science to obtain scientific knowledge in their area of
studies, as an attempt to obtain constant results.
Different ways of obtaining scientific knowledge
There are different ways of obtaining scientific knowledge that are partially contradictory
to each other and are therefore widely discussed. The ones presented in this section are
the Inductive method, Empiricism, and Logical Positivism, as well as Constructivism and
Quantification.
The ‘inductive method’
The inductive method of gaining scientific knowledge works in the way that facts are
obtained from observations in an area of science. These facts are then transferred into a
universal theory or law. It is a popular conception that scientific knowledge is derived
from facts. Facts are claims about the world established by observations based on the
use of sense perception. When the observation is carried out properly, the facts are a
secure basis for science. When the following reasoning is sound, the laws and theories
deduced from the facts are reliable. Therefore, these facts are prior to and independent
of theory. It can be summed up that the ‘inductive method’ uses one case example and
establishes this as a generality that is applicable in every case.
‘Empiricism’ and ‘logical positivism’
Modern science developed from the 15 th century onwards when society started to realise
that observation is the source of scientific knowledge. This era is also known under the
term ‘Scientific Revolution’. Before, knowledge was solely based on authority. For
example, the bible was perceived as an authority, therefore a reliable source of
knowledge, the same applying for the ideas of Aristotle. Modern science became possible
when authority started to be challenged. Galilei was a defender of the idea that science is
obtained from experience and observation. He was very influential in spreading this idea
amongst the society.
From this modern view that science is derived from facts, two schools developed:


One was the ‘empiricist’ school, which emerged in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Representatives of empiricism are John Locke, George Berkeley
and David Hume. Empiricists argue that all knowledge derives from sense
perception.
The second approach is the ‘Positivistic’ view. It was firstly introduced by
Auguste Comte in the 19th century and later formalised by logical
positivists in the 1920s in the Vienna circle. They hold the view that
acquiring scientific knowledge is the only way of knowing the world.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
3
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
Furthermore, the Vienna circle considered science as a way to overcome
non-scientific beliefs, for example nationalism. Logical positivists search to
form all areas of study in one science, for example history and the Social
Sciences. This view was problematic with the time, as in the 1920s and
1930s a world that was controlled by science was considered undesirable.
This could be seen in the literature of the time, for example in Aldous
Huxley’s novel ‘Brave New World’ published in 1932. Logical positivists
claim that scientific knowledge can be discovered because the world is
fixed, independent of the human perception of it. Therefore, different
observers all see and learn the same.
‘Constructivism’
The problem identified with using the senses to obtain scientific knowledge is that two
people might for example view the same object, but will not necessarily “see” the same.
Due to different foreknowledge, upbringing, cultural background, expectations and
experiences, the two observers might interpret what they are seeing in two completely
different manners. This is identified in the ‘constructivist’ approach which presents an
opposing view to logical positivism. Constructivists argue that what you discover while
observing the world depends upon the way the observer learned to interpret the world.
Therefore, this approach suggests that scientific knowledge is produced. However, there
is the common idea that a single, unique, physical world exists independently of the
observer. Even though the researches shall be neutral when conducting research, it is
difficult for him to do so. Indeed, what he sees depends on what he is looking for,
expectation and knowledge he has from experience or education.
‘Quantification’
Scientific knowledge can also be obtained by Quantification and the use of Mathematics.
Galileo argued that the world can be explained by using mathematics. From
observations, mathematical patterns can be obtained. These allow scientists to predict
potential outcomes of further research. Mathematics orders and rationalizes observations
and facts. This method of obtaining scientific knowledge is logical and does not need to
be proven by the senses which would be done in accordance to the empiricist approach.
New observations can be deduced from mathematical patterns which also allow
predictions in future research. Additionally, as soon as observations in a field can be
quantified, it is considered as scientific. For example, as climate is translated into
numbers, measured by degrees, it is standardized and classified as scientific.
‘Social structure’
There is also a social component within obtaining scientific knowledge, the social
structure in science. The only way to verify or falsify science for a scientist is to publish
his or her findings and let others test it. Science has become a universal way of knowing
the world and can only be developed through networks of people and tools. There is not
one individual conducting scientific research, but different scientists working together and
checking each other’s work.
The tendency today moves more to the claim that scientific knowledge can neither be
conclusively proved, nor disproved and that facts acquired from observation are not as
reliable as assumed before. The idea that science is a rational activity is given up. In the
‘postmodernist’ perspective, the view is held that science is more a modern religion and
not superior to other sources of knowledge, for example ancient myths or voodoo. This
belief about science not being objective came up because scientific theories are
determined exclusively by individuals which is to a considerable extent subjective.
Karl Popper and the theory of ‘Falsification’ (evolutionary thinking)
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
4
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
The philosopher Karl Popper can be considered as an empiricist. However, he also
distinguished himself from the empiricists ideas about science and scientific knowledge.
Popper wanted to find a method for distinguishing science from non-science, also called
pseudoscience. This search he named the ‘problem of demarcation’, by developing the
method of ‘Falsification’. He argues that science can be distinguished from non-science
when it can be falsified by observations obtained from experiments. When a theory can
never be falsified because it is compatible with every possible observation and
experiment conducted, this theory can be ‘demarcated’ from non-science in Popper’s
view. Examples of these non-scientific theories for Popper are Marxism, Freudism and
economics because it is difficult to find a way to falsify their theories. He argues further
that a scientific theory can never be confirmed, it can only be falsified and that falsifying
a theory should be the aim of scientific testing and the job of scientists.
The principle of falsification
The principle of falsification applied, works like this: an observational prediction, also
called a hypothesis is deduced from a theory. Then, an experiment is carried out to check
if the outcome is as the theory predicted it to be. If not, then the theory is falsified.
If yes, the theory “has not yet been falsified”. The job of the scientist is to try further to
falsify the theory in some other way until the theory is eventually falsified. Popper claims
that confidence in a theory never increases, although it is put to the test multiple times
and it passes it every time. He says that it is never possible to collect enough
observations to confirm a theory. Following from this, all theories are fallible, we can
never be sure if a theory is correct or not.
Through this continuous falsification of theories, Popper argues, science progresses
evolutionary in a two-step cycle. The first step is that a hypothesis is formulated. This is
called a conjecture. In a second step the conjecture is attempted to be refuted, i.e.
falsified. As soon as this is successful, the scientist modifies his hypothesis or comes up
with a new one and then the whole process starts over again. This is, in Popper’s view,
scientific progress and good science.
Thomas Kuhn and Normal Science (revolutionary thinking)
In his book ‘The structure of scientific revolutions’ published in 1962, the physicist
Thomas Kuhn came up with new ideas about science, completely moving away from
traditional views about science.
‘Paradigms’
Kuhn argues that science is based on ‘Paradigms’. Paradigms in the broad sense are a
package of methods and claims which constitute a certain view on the world and a way of
doing science differing depending on the field of scientific study. Scientists in this field
agree on methods for gathering and analysing data. The paradigms provide the scientists
with the parameters and an understanding of fundamental ideas within their certain field
of science. Kuhn argues that there is usually only one paradigm per field, per time.
Paradigms can also be seen in the narrower sense. This would be a specific achievement
within a paradigm of the broad sense. It is a source of inspiration and suggests a way for
future research.
Normal science
Kuhn uses the term ‘normal science’ for the science conducted via paradigms. ‘Normal
science’ is the scientific work done within the agreed framework of a paradigm. This kind
of science is very organised because scientists agree on what should be researched and a
way to see the world reflected in the paradigms. Normal science emerges as a striking
achievement and inspires further work in a field. In this phase, there is no paradigm
present, yet because it first needs to be agreed upon standardised methods and claims.
This is called ‘pre-paradigm science’. Research goes on in this field now, however in an
ineffective way. At some point, there will be an achievement which provides insight in
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
5
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
some parts of the world and a model for further investigation, which proves to be
successful, the field’s first paradigm is established.
Kuhn speaks of ‘normal science’ also of ‘puzzle-solving’. This implies that a solution for
problems in scientific research is always possible. Furthermore, normal scientists also do
not look for phenomena that change the paradigms. Scientists use the paradigm of their
field to understand the world in this area of study and contribute to it by further research
through which the paradigm is then further refined. Scientists of the field agree on new
standards for the paradigm that improve its efficiency within the field of study that the
paradigm is designed for. This characterises the organised progress of ‘normal science’
and characterises good science for Kuhn.
‘Scientific Revolution’
Kuhn claims that a paradigm can be replaced by a new one, when the former one is not
able to solve scientific ‘puzzles’ anymore. Hypotheses, according to Kuhn, are refuted
and confirmed all the time and this is not a reason to replace a paradigm. Only when too
many ‘anomalies’ occur, which means that too many ‘puzzles’ cannot be solved by using
the paradigm that the old paradigm’s credibility is called into question. In addition to
that, there must be a rival paradigm that is possibly more effective in solving the
scientific ‘puzzles’ that the old paradigm could not solve. When a complete replacement,
also called paradigm-shift occurs, this is called scientific revolution by Kuhn.
The unstable period during which the old paradigm is not valid anymore and the new
paradigm is not fully developed or present yet is called crisis science. Kuhn says that
revolutions are essential and inevitable in normal science, but only when there is the
right stimulus to which the field of science response with a replacement of the old
paradigm. A stimulus could be the appearance of a specific vital problem in the field that
the paradigm cannot solve. Then, the inadequacy of the paradigm is shown and it is
searched to be replaced.
The incommensurability of paradigms
The view is held that during a revolution, certain things are lost and certain things are
gained. The evaluation of the amount of gains and losses is always biased. This is also
because ‘different paradigms are incommensurable with each other’. This means that
different paradigms cannot be compared to each other. This supposedly brings problems
with it. First, people working with different paradigms cannot communicate very well with
each other. However, this problem is partly solved as there is the principle of ‘scientific
bilingualism’. This means that scientists can switch from one framework to another to
overcome the differences in language deriving from the different paradigms. A more
consistent problem with incommensurability is that different paradigms use different
standards and methods which cannot be compared with each other. This means that
scientists working with different paradigms interpret one theory in different ways.
Relativism
This problem of different paradigms working with different frameworks is dealt with by
the relativists’ point of view. Relativism in this context means that the truth or
justification of a claim depends on the point of view of the individual. As different
paradigms contain different standards, they cannot be compared to each other. From the
relativist point of view this means that new paradigms are not more effective than the
old paradigms because they are completely different and therefore incomparable. In this
view, science does not head towards a final paradigm which is superior to all former
ones.
Kuhn distances himself from the relativist approach. He argues that the present
paradigms are more suitable to solve scientific ‘puzzles’ than the old paradigms, as a
paradigm-shift is a progress in science. This progress will be measured by assessing the
number and precision of solutions for problems in a scientific field.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
6
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
B. Chapter 2: Are the Social Sciences a Science?
This chapter deals with the question whether the Social Sciences can be regarded as an
actual science and therefore be studied by using scientific methods. Furthermore, Bent
Flyvbjerg’s view about this topic is presented. At the end, Charles Taylor’s discourse
about the difference between political science and political philosophy is summed up.
The strive for the natural science’s accuracy within the Social Sciences
Since the 18th century it has been discussed if there can be one way of knowing the
world, i.e. one unified science that includes both, the natural as well as the Social
Sciences. The researchers of the Social Sciences during the 19th century tried to apply
the scientific method of the natural sciences to their field of study. This is because the
natural sciences are considered as the ideal of research due to their attempt to gain
knowledge about the world we live in. The natural sciences offer explanations and
predictions about how the world functions and will function in the future, based on
independent and universal theories. This is also what the social scientists strive for. They
search to apply the paradigms used in the natural sciences to their studies. There are
ways to understand the social world scientifically, for example by quantifying the social
world and translating it into mathematics. Examples of the quantification of the Social
Sciences would be the field of economics and demographics. Some thinkers of the Social
Sciences, for example Karl Marx, even suggest that there will be only one science, which
combines both, the social and the natural sciences.
When quantifying the Social Sciences, there will, however, always be a gap between the
numbers deduced, and the individual’s experience of the world. Every translation of the
social and human world into science would be an approximation. The social studies are
context dependent and the object of study, the human, is not an irrational being and
therefore rather unpredictive. This is admitted by Freud, who says that the natural
scientific methods are ideal, but are not suitable for the field of psychology for example,
as he suggests that subjective feelings cannot be measured.
One Universal Science
Some approaches exist that suggest that the Social Sciences do not differ much from the
Natural Sciences and that both can be analysed using the same methods. In this part,
the idea of Hermeneutics and the archaeological method are presented, which both
suggest that the Social Sciences are as much a Science as the Natural Sciences.
The idea of “Hermeneutics”
The term hermeneutics derives from ancient Greece which means interpretation. In
ancient Greek mythology, the God Hermes who delivered messages around the world
always had to interpret the messages he was delivering.
Around the 1970s, the natural sciences were relativized as it was claimed that the facts,
methods, and theories which are used are determined and interpreted subjectively by the
researcher’s life experience. There are therefore two ways of knowing the world. On the
one hand, there is the scientific method. On the other hand, there is the humanist
interpretative way of knowing the world. Consequently, the results obtained from
applying the frameworks of a scientific field are objective. The frameworks themselves
cannot be considered as objective as they were determined and interpreted by
individuals. By looking at the sciences from this perspective, the only difference between
the social and the natural sciences would only be that the natural sciences are cumulative
and predictive. The two sciences can, however, not be regarded as objective. This
approach is called “hermeneutics” and would plead for the claim that the social science
does not so much differ from the natural sciences. Both are, not objectively, produced by
humans through the interpretation and determination of certain facts, methods, and
theories. This is also called the universality of hermeneutics.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
7
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
This approach would conclude that a unified science would be a Social Science as
everything starts out with the human constructing different frameworks. The human is
not objective as he establishes the frameworks based on his individual life experience.
Pre-paradigmatic science
It is argued that the Social Sciences could be studied in the same way as the normal
sciences which use paradigms. It is claimed that the Social Sciences are in a preparadigmatic stage, where a paradigm is not developed yet. The object of study in the
Social Sciences is far more complex than the object in the Natural Sciences. Hence, the
Social Sciences need more time to develop their paradigms. Then, they can in theory
achieve the same paradigmatic stage as the natural sciences and could become as
cumulative, stable, and predictable.
The “archaeological method”
Human beings in scientific research must be seen in two different ways. They are the
‘meaningless’ object of study and also give meaning to different things. This is an
obstacle to the development of stable and objective human sciences. To overcome this,
there is the “archaeological” method which suggests that this duality is only present in a
certain historical period and not connected with every form of the human sciences. At
some point the object of research will not be the meaning-giver anymore, as everything
has been given a meaning already; the human being will then only be the meaningless
object of research.
Different approaches of distinguishing the natural from the social sciences
In contrast, there are multiple approaches that suggest that the Social Sciences differ too
much from the Natural Sciences to be studied in the same way. Some approaches even
suggest that the Social Sciences cannot even be considered scientific.
Progress in the Social Sciences
The social sciences cannot experience scientific revolutions as the natural sciences in
Kuhn’s approach. There would not be enough anomalies within a certain framework, or
paradigm, that would question it. The Social Sciences work with constellations of power
and fashions. As social scientists see a certain fashion being outdated due to
developments in society for example, they move on to the next fashion. Within the Social
Sciences there is therefore a change in style in accordance with the new fashion. This
constitutes a constant reorganisation, which never triggers crisis science and therefore
no scientific revolution. This means that the Social Sciences are not normal science and
can therefore be considered as unscientific.
“Double-hermeneutics”
The natural sciences study physical non-living objects. The social sciences on the
contrary study humans who are self-reflective. While conducting research, the scientist
interprets the objects he or she is studying. However, the “objects” in social sciences are
self-reflective human beings and therefore also interpret the research that is being
conducted. This is called “Double-hermeneutics”. Here, the context of the “object” of
research, as well as the context of the one who is conducting the research is important
as it changes over time. When the context changes, the research is done in a completely
different way and the outcome will as well be entirely different. Indeed, humans do not
show constant similarities regarding what they may think or behave, for example
regarding a social or political event. Therefore, stability as in the natural sciences is
impossible in the Social Sciences.
“Hermeneutic-phenomenological”
Nevertheless, the context in which the research is done needs to be formalised or put
into theories to create objective research. This is not possible, as everything about the
research changes depending on the various situations. Researchers do not need to
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
8
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
formulate rules for the skills they are applying as they can use them unconsciously and
still have success. This is called “hermeneutic-phenomenological”. The Social Sciences
are hence not a normal science because they lack the ability to explain the skills required
for certain fields of study.
The Rationalist approach
The rationalist approach put forward by Plato and Kant is about the idea that the human
brain works based on rules. All skills are therefore based on rules and the more advanced
a researcher is, the more unconsciously he or she can use these rules. This would defend
the claim that the Social Sciences are not scientific as it is difficult to formulate theories
in the Social Sciences. However, this idea is challenged by the fact that artificial
intelligence which simulates human intelligence in accordance with rules does not work.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge that studies how knowledge is verified. This
approach would argue that context-independent theories are epistemic, i.e. true,
applicable, and not questioned. Kuhn’s normal science can be considered as being
epistemic. The study of the social world is not scientific in the conservative way and is
therefore not considered to be epistemic as well.
Flyvbjerg’s point of view (Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter:
Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again)
Flyvbjerg argues that the social world needs to be studied differently than the natural
world because the objects of study in the two sciences are entirely different. For him, the
social sciences are not a science and will never be. In the natural sciences, the object of
study is only physical, whereas the object of study in the social sciences, the human, is
self-reflective and therefore, rather a subject. For him the pre-paradigmatic approach is
invalid as the social sciences have now existed for a rather long time, even longer than
some natural sciences and they have still not developed any paradigms in their fields of
study. He further argues that the Social Sciences will never be able to create a paradigm
within a certain field of study as there will always be disagreement about methods, facts
and theories. This would result in the conclusion that work in social sciences cannot be
conducted in the same way as the work of the natural sciences.
Political philosophy and political science
Some argue that political philosophy is not needed anymore because the field of political
science grew to the extent that it can be separated from its philosophy. It became value
free and can now operate by using the scientific method. The political sciences study the
facts given about their domain dispassionately and objectively.
Explaining phenomena in the political sciences
In the political science, crucial features that help to explain phenomena have not been
developed. However, the task of a political scientist is to suggest which features seem
relevant to explain a certain phenomenon and which features do not seem helpful at all.
A range of features to explain the phenomenon is set up from this. Therefore, many
theoretical frameworks emerge in which scientific research in the political science can be
conducted. These frameworks set the dimensions by which the phenomena can be
explained. It is impossible within the political sciences to develop laws out of discoveries,
it is only possible to maintain a general description of the phenomenon within the
suitable framework which has been developed in advance by political philosophy.
The normative approach
Any statement about “what it should be”, opposed to “what it is”, is normative. With
regard to political philosophy and political science, this means that it is only possible to
obtain facts from already existing values and not the other way around. The values
represent what should be and science should derive from this.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
9
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
The inseparability of Political Philosophy and Political Science (Taylor, C. (1994)
Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science)
Political philosophy imposed the values in politics and established the frameworks, or
paradigms, in which a political science should operate. All observations and facts
obtained in the political sciences are therefore based on the values which produced the
paradigm in the first place. Taylor explains that facts can only derive from values and not
the other way around. The facts obtained can therefore be objective, however, the
political sciences are still loaded with the values imposed on them by political philosophy.
Values can be considered as emotional responses to certain phenomena, which are
triggered by the individual’s life experience. Political philosophy created the values of
different fields within the social sciences. Some claim that the values can be separated
from the facts and that therefore, political science is objective and separable from
political philosophy. However, to conduct research within the political sciences, the
researcher operates in accordance with a certain value. This is the researcher’s own
choice and therefore subjective. Taylor consequently argues that the political philosophy
and the political sciences are inseparable.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
10
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
C. Scientific research in the European Studies
This chapter explains the methods and theories the European Studies use to conduct
scientific research, and how this research is motivated in the first place. Furthermore, it
will touch upon the question whether the European Studies can be regarded as a field of
the political sciences or rather as a new interdisciplinary study.
“European integration and the social science of EU studies: the disciplinary
politics of a subfield”, Ben Rosamond (2007; pp.231-242)
European studies are a discipline through which knowledge about the European Union
(EU) is obtained. When researching in this area, a complex relationship between ‘theory’
and ‘practice’ can be discovered. The researcher’s awareness of the necessity and
interest to study the European Union is raised when important events, for example
signing of new treaties or implementation of new policies can be observed. The
researcher in this field of study wants to find out more about these events and their
significance. For this purpose, the scientist needs to choose theories and approaches to
conduct and organize his research. To examine these theories, scientists of the European
studies try to apply them to real-world phenomena in the EU. This application to real life
is also useful for testing competitive theories, for example the different theoretical
approaches of the European integration process. The research in European studies
reflects assumptions, debates and biases and is therefore never completely neutral. To
cope with this subjectivity, the ‘internalist driver’ is necessary, which outlines the broader
context from which the work is deducted. The ‘internalist driver’ is also crucial for
understanding the events in the European Union, which are called the ‘externalist driver’.
Progress in European Studies
For the European Studies to evolve, two factors are needed:
- Scholarly contingency
- Disciplinary politics
Scholarly Contingency
Contingency in this context means that researchers in the European studies start their
research by looking at their object of study by presupposed conditions. This helps to
understand the relation between the development of the EU and its academic study.
Scholarly Contingency applied to the example of the European integration process would
mean: The explanation of different theories of European integration are a product of the
theoretical approach the scientist has chosen and the way the scientist interprets the
European integration process as it takes place in real life.
There are two tendencies in the EU studies. The first one is to discover and emphasize
the new and unfamiliar observations and subsequent theories. The second one is to
translate the new discoveries within the European studies into already known
frameworks. The advantage of this second approach is the gain of “analytical leverage”.
This means that by translating the unknown into known frameworks, researchers within
the EU studies are able to form hypotheses and generalizations from the specific case of
the EU. The disadvantage of the approach is that through interpreting new phenomena
within the EU by using already known frameworks, the EU studies might lose their
newness.
Disciplinary Politics
The European Studies help to explain disciplinary politics in the social sciences. There are
two associations with the European studies in terms of disciplinary politics. The first one
is the suggestion that the way in which the EU is studied derives from the factors that
are part of the EU studies. The second association refers to the ‘double meaning’ of
discipline. A discipline consists of the way of organizing academic analysis in a limited
area od study, as well as of the means by which theories and laws are enforced in
research. Here, disagreement about which practices and theories are the most suitable
can arise among different scientists of the field of EU studies.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
11
Overview Study Material “Research Skills: What is Good Science” 2016-2017
Academic communities are social networks that firstly, possess rules about what is
proper scientific work in their specific field of study. Secondly, they agree on norms about
how proper scientific research is conducted. Thirdly, they reach an agreement on the
boundaries of their field of study.
What field of study are the European studies?
There are a lot of debates about to what field of study the European Studies belong.
Some claim that they are part of the political sciences and others argue that the
European Studies are a discipline for themselves.
The ‘mainstreaming’ model
The ‘mainstreaming’ model suggests that the European studies developed from the
political sciences and should therefore use the framework provided by the political
sciences. This is supposed to be the only way to conduct successful research in European
studies. In the political sciences, there are already established, recognized and
standardized methods and rules of thumb from which the EU studies should draw. There
will only be analytical leverage, in other words influence, if the European Studies
compare their work to other research of the political sciences.
The ‘pluralistic’ model
The second suggestion for where the EU studies belong is the ‘pluralistic’ model. It
suggests that the European Studies are a new type of academy and should therefore not
use the tools provided by the political sciences as these might not be appropriate for the
EU studies. The approach claims that the European studies are rather multi- and
interdisciplinary. Therefore, these studies should use diverse methods, approaches, and
theories.
The externalist driver (the motivator to study the EU)
External factors are events, processes and publications, for example, that will ‘pull’ the
scientist of the EU studies into a certain direction of research. Real life events in the EU
lead to increased scientific research to conceptualize these events and translate them
into frameworks. This increased importance of day-to-day work of the EU in EU studies is
called ‘normative turn’.
The European studies develop in the way that it will always be selected the best suitable
framework to explain the real-life events within the EU, in academic terms.
The translation of real-life events within the EU, is explained by using the process of
European integration as an example. In the first phase, European integration needs to be
explained. Different ideas about the causes for integration need to be taken into
consideration and its meanings need to be outlined. In the second phase, the institutions
and policies of European integration are analyzed. In the third phase, the enforcement of
European unity, for example through treaties will be examined with specific interest for
the social implications, for example citizenship, democracy, and identity.
The external drivers, i.e. the real-life situations pulling the researcher in a distinct
direction have also restrictions. They can explain some overall directions of change, but
they can never explain the form the theory may take.
Facebook.com/SlimStuderen
12