Ciencia, ideología e investigación social: comentarios sobre un artículo de Chavarría (2011)/Science, ideology and social research: Comments on an article by Chavarria (2011)

Bueno Cuadra, Roberto

doi:10.15517/ap.v28i116.14893

Authors

Roberto Bueno Cuadra Universidad de San Martín de Porres Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v28i116.14893

Keywords:

Epistemology, ideology, objectivity, social research

Abstract

From the view of what Brown (2001) calls “Scientific Orthodoxy” three arguments stated by Chavarría (2001) in her introducing of the complexity paradigm are critically analyzed: 1. The modern scientific advances have demonstrated that objectivity in science is impossible and reality is uncertain and indeterminate; 2. The validity of scientific knowledge does not depend (or does not only depend) on cognitive criteria but essentially on social and political criteria, and 3. Scientific orthodoxy supports a methodological view of science, and the shortcomings and insufficiencies in the practice of many researchers (for example, lack of theory) are inherent features of quantitative and objective research. Therefore, it is concluded that education and training in social research cannot be based on a relativist view of reality and knowledge and on the confusing of science and ideology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baggott, J. (1993). The meaning of quantum theory. A guide for students of chemistry and physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198555766.001.0001

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bernard, C. (1865). Introduction a l´etude de la médecine expérimentale. Paris: J. B. Baillière et Fils.

Boghossian, P. A. (2006). Fear of knowledge. Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287185.001.0001

Briceño, J., Rivas, Y., Ruza, I. & Lobo, H. (2009). Una visión holística del mundo desde la perspectiva de la física. Educere, 13 (4), 49-54.

Brown, J. R. (1994). Smoke and mirrors. How science reflects reality. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203305355

Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science. An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028876

Bunge, M. (2007). A la caza de la realidad. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E. & Yardley, L. (2003). Naming the stars: Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research. En P.M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes. & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 3-15). Washington: American Psychological Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10595-001

Chavarría, M. C. (2011). La dicotomía cuantitativo / cualitativo: falsos dilemas en investigación social. Actualidades en Psicología, 25, 1-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v25i112.70

Chiesa, M. (1994). Radical behaviorism: The philosophy and the science. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

Colás, P. (2001). Educación e investigación en la sociedad del conocimiento: enfoques emergentes. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 19, 291-313.

Dickson, W. M. (2005). Quantum chance and non-locality. Probability and non-locality in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Diéguez, A. (2006). La ciencia desde una perspectiva postmoderna: Entre la legitimidad política y la validez epistemológica. Recuperado de http://webpersonal.uma.es/~DIEGUEZ/hipervpdf/CIENCIAPOSTMODERNA.pdf.

Garola, C. (2002). A simple model for an objective interpretation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 32, 1597-1615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020431419786

Green, J. & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methods for health research. Londres: Sage.

Hathaway, R. S. (1995). Assumptions underlying quantitative and qualitative research: Implications for institutional research. Research in Higher Education, 36, 535-562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02208830

Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P. & Gershenson, C. (2007). Philosophy and complexity. En J. Bogg & R. Geyer (Eds.), Complexity, science and society (pp. 117-134). Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315383132-8

Jorge, E. (2003). Nuevos elementos para la reflexión metodológica en sociología. Del debate cuantitativo/ cualitativo al dato complejo. Papers, 70, 57-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/papers/v70n0.1271

Kantor, J. R. (1958). Interbehavioral psychology. Bloomington, IN: The Principia Press.

Kleppner, D. (1996). Physics and common nonsense. En P. R. Gross, N. Levitt & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 126-130). Nueva York: The New York Academy of Sciences. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb23134.x

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001

Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. Londres: Routledge.

Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M. J. & Riemer, F. (2012). Introduction to qualitative research. En S. D. Lapan, M. J. Quartaroli & F. Riemer (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (p. 3-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lather, P. (2003). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. En Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research: tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 185-215). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216417880.ch-9

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

Machado, A., Lourenço, O. & Silva, F. J. (2000). Facts, concepts, and theories: The shape of psychology´s epistemic triangle. Behavior and Philosophy, 28, 1-40.

Moore, J. (2008). Conceptual foundations of radical behaviorism. Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan.

Morin, E. (1990). Introducción al pensamiento complejo. Traducido del francés. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Morin, E. (1999). El método. III. El conocimiento del conocimiento. Libro primero: Antropología del conocimiento. Traducido del francés. Tercera edición. Madrid: Cátedra.

Morin, E. (2005). La epistemología de la complejidad. En J. L. Solana (Coord.), Con Edgar Morin, por un pensamiento complejo (pp. 27-52). Madrid: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía/Akal.

Norris, C. (2003). Quantum theory and the flight from realism. Philosophical responses to quantum mechanics. Nueva York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203464311

Otero, E. (1998). El “programa fuerte” en sociología de la ciencia y sus críticos. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales, 2, 89-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.1998.n2-09

Páramo, P. & Otálvaro, G. (2006). Investigación alternativa: Por una distinción entre posturas epistemológicas y no entre métodos. Cinta de Moebio, 25. Recuperado de http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/101/10102501.pdf.

Preparata, G. (2002). An introduction to a realistic quantum physics. Singapur: World Scientific Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/5111

Riggs, P. (2009). Quantum causality. Conceptual issues in the causal theory of quantum mechanics. Nueva York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2403-9

Searle, J. R. (1993). Rationality and realism, what is at stake? Daedalus, 122 (4), 55-83.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Nueva York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/11256-000

Skinner, B. F. (1968). Contingencies of reinforcement. A theoretical analysis. Nueva York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Nueva York: Knopf.

Thyer, B. A. (2008). The potentially harmful effects of theory in social work, En B. A. Thyer (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of social work and social welfare, Vol. 2. Human behavior in the social environment (pp. 519-541). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470373705.chsw002021

Valencia, G. (2009). Principios epistémicos y metáforas fecundas. Una propuesta para el análisis transdisciplinario del tiempo social. Acta Sociológica, 49, mayo-agosto, 101-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fcpys.24484938e.2009.49.18706

Vanderstoep, S. W. & Johnston, D. D. (2009). Research methods for everyday life. Building qualitative and quantitative approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zuriff, G. (1985). Behaviorism: A conceptual reconstruction. Nueva York: Columbia University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/zuri90466