Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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 The amount will be withdrawn from your account only once.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